mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009044.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "43",
    "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 43 of 66\npresented by the parties' and, therefore, are indicative of a lack of impartiality because a fundamental instruction in every federal case is that a juror must render a verdict 'solely on the evidence presented at trial.'\" Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 165 (quoting Thomas, 116 F.3d at 617 & n.10 (citing The Federal Judicial Center's Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges)). Therefore, dishonest answers are a factor that can contribute to a finding of implied bias. See Skaggs, 164 F.3d at 517.\nThe false answers Ms. Maxwell knows about so far, by themselves, provide a basis for a new trial because, if they had been exposed during voir dire, this Court would have treated Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]. But he also did much more, falsely denying that he had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. [REDACTED]\n[REDACTED]\nThis Court should treat Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED], and on that ground order a new trial. [REDACTED].\n36\nDOJ-OGR-00009044",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 43 of 66",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "presented by the parties' and, therefore, are indicative of a lack of impartiality because a fundamental instruction in every federal case is that a juror must render a verdict 'solely on the evidence presented at trial.'\" Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 165 (quoting Thomas, 116 F.3d at 617 & n.10 (citing The Federal Judicial Center's Benchbook for U.S. District Court Judges)). Therefore, dishonest answers are a factor that can contribute to a finding of implied bias. See Skaggs, 164 F.3d at 517.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The false answers Ms. Maxwell knows about so far, by themselves, provide a basis for a new trial because, if they had been exposed during voir dire, this Court would have treated Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[REDACTED]",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[REDACTED]. But he also did much more, falsely denying that he had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. [REDACTED]",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "[REDACTED]",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Court should treat Juror No. 50 just as it treated Juror No. [REDACTED], and on that ground order a new trial. [REDACTED].",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "36",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009044",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Sampson",
      "Thomas",
      "Skaggs"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "The Federal Judicial Center",
      "U.S. District Court",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 613",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009044"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely due to sensitive information. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}