mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009043.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "42",
    "document_number": "613",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 42 of 66\na serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [Juror No. 50's] shoes would be able to disregard [his] own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id. Moreover, like the juror in Ashfar, Juror No. 50's post-trial conduct further supports a finding of implied bias. The juror in Ashfar communicated with a victim of sexual assault; here, Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Farmer. The juror in Ashfar viewed himself as \"advocate for people;\" here, Juror No. 50 proclaimed that the verdict against Ms. Maxwell was a verdict \"for all the victims.\"\n\nThe bias of Juror No. 50 should be implied for another reason: \"[R]epeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472.\n\nCrucially, \"[e]ven when prospective jurors are dishonest for reasons other than a desire to secure a seat on the jury, dishonest answers to voir dire questions indicate that a juror is unwilling or unable 'to apply the law as instructed by the court to the evidence\n\n35\nDOJ-OGR-00009043",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 42 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [Juror No. 50's] shoes would be able to disregard [his] own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id. Moreover, like the juror in Ashfar, Juror No. 50's post-trial conduct further supports a finding of implied bias. The juror in Ashfar communicated with a victim of sexual assault; here, Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Farmer. The juror in Ashfar viewed himself as \"advocate for people;\" here, Juror No. 50 proclaimed that the verdict against Ms. Maxwell was a verdict \"for all the victims.\"\n\nThe bias of Juror No. 50 should be implied for another reason: \"[R]epeated lies in voir dire imply that the juror concealed material facts in order to secure a spot on the particular jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472.\n\nCrucially, \"[e]ven when prospective jurors are dishonest for reasons other than a desire to secure a seat on the jury, dishonest answers to voir dire questions indicate that a juror is unwilling or unable 'to apply the law as instructed by the court to the evidence",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009043",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "613",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009043"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a redacted section. The text is mostly clear, but there are several blacked-out lines indicating redactions."
}