mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009887.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18 of 32",
    "document_number": "644",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 18 of 32\nanother.\" (quoting Texaco Inc. v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., 995 F.2d 43, 44 (5th Cir. 1993))); see also Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 900 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1996) (\"[W]hen faced with an intra-circuit conflict, a panel should follow earlier, settled precedent over a subsequent deviation therefrom.\"); P. Beiersdorf & Co. v. McGohey, 187 F.2d 14, 15 (2d Cir. 1951) (when there is an intra-circuit conflict, courts must follow the earlier decision).\nOf course, this Court need not conclude that Shaoul is inconsistent with McDonough and Langford in order to reject the government's argument. As described above, Shaoul does not address the reading of McDonough that Ms. Maxwell advocates for here, since it did not discuss or even cite the McDonough concurring opinions.\nMoreover, Second Circuit cases following Lanford and Shaoul have reaffirmed that a deliberate falsehood is not a prerequisite to a new trial. Cf. United States v. Mansfield, 2019 WL 3858511, at *4 & n.4 (D. Colo. No. 18-cr-00466-PAB, Aug. 16, 2019) (in face of intra-circuit conflict, following first-decided case and noting that subsequent cases had followed first decision was as well). In Stewart, for example, decided in 2006, the Court cited and quoted McDonough and yet did not require a deliberately false answer, stating instead that \"a party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303 (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\nThen there's United States v. Greer, which reads McDonough and Langford just as Ms. Maxwell reads them, even while citing Shaoul. United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171-72 (2d Cir. 2002). As the Court explained in Greer, \"McDonough establishes a multi-part test in which a juror's dishonesty is among the 'factors to be considered' in the ultimate determination of bias. . . .\" Id. at 173 (citing Langford, 990 F.2d at 68-70 (emphasis added)). Thus, just as Ms. Maxwell\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00009887",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 18 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "another.\" (quoting Texaco Inc. v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., 995 F.2d 43, 44 (5th Cir. 1993))); see also Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898, 900 n. 4 (10th Cir. 1996) (\"[W]hen faced with an intra-circuit conflict, a panel should follow earlier, settled precedent over a subsequent deviation therefrom.\"); P. Beiersdorf & Co. v. McGohey, 187 F.2d 14, 15 (2d Cir. 1951) (when there is an intra-circuit conflict, courts must follow the earlier decision).\nOf course, this Court need not conclude that Shaoul is inconsistent with McDonough and Langford in order to reject the government's argument. As described above, Shaoul does not address the reading of McDonough that Ms. Maxwell advocates for here, since it did not discuss or even cite the McDonough concurring opinions.\nMoreover, Second Circuit cases following Lanford and Shaoul have reaffirmed that a deliberate falsehood is not a prerequisite to a new trial. Cf. United States v. Mansfield, 2019 WL 3858511, at *4 & n.4 (D. Colo. No. 18-cr-00466-PAB, Aug. 16, 2019) (in face of intra-circuit conflict, following first-decided case and noting that subsequent cases had followed first decision was as well). In Stewart, for example, decided in 2006, the Court cited and quoted McDonough and yet did not require a deliberately false answer, stating instead that \"a party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303 (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\nThen there's United States v. Greer, which reads McDonough and Langford just as Ms. Maxwell reads them, even while citing Shaoul. United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171-72 (2d Cir. 2002). As the Court explained in Greer, \"McDonough establishes a multi-part test in which a juror's dishonesty is among the 'factors to be considered' in the ultimate determination of bias. . . .\" Id. at 173 (citing Langford, 990 F.2d at 68-70 (emphasis added)). Thus, just as Ms. Maxwell",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009887",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Texaco Inc.",
      "Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.",
      "P. Beiersdorf & Co.",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Colo."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "1993",
      "1996",
      "1951",
      "Aug. 16, 2019",
      "2006",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 644",
      "18-cr-00466-PAB",
      "2019 WL 3858511"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}