mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009215.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "document_number": "616",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 25 of 32\n\nAt any hearing it is the Court's job to evaluate the evidence presented, not present the evidence. The evidence elicited should be the product of all available investigation and research.\n\nIn Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cited favorably by the government, Judge Kozinski explained the perils of a court conducting a juror bias inquiry with incomplete information or failing to ask critical questions. \"[A] judge investigating juror bias must find facts, not make assumptions . . . [I]t was the trial court's obligation to develop the relevant facts on the record, not merely presume them. The judge's lack of verve in pursuing the matter casts doubt on his findings.\" Id. at 976-77. The Ninth Circuit en banc opinion also was critical of the trial judge's refusal to allow the defense to subpoena a critical witness of the bias. \"Where juror misconduct or bias is credibly alleged, the trial judge cannot wait for defense counsel to spoon feed him every bit of information which would make out a case of juror bias; rather, the judge has an independent responsibility to satisfy himself that the allegation of bias is unfounded.\" Id. at 978.\n\nIf the Court is charged with the responsibility questioning Juror No. 50, what resources will the Court use to uncover any statements and misstatements made by Juror No. 50? Will the Court investigate Juror No. 50's motives? Will the Court hire an investigator to find all of the posts made by Juror No. 50 about the trial? Having witnessed Juror No. 50 during the trial and having previously questioned Juror No. 50 -- both through a written questionnaire and in person -- under the government's farcical hearing the Court would be a (1) witness, (2) inquisitor, (3) factfinder and (4) sole decision maker. These multiple, conflicted, roles are no model of due process.\n\n20\nDOJ-OGR-00009215",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 25 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At any hearing it is the Court's job to evaluate the evidence presented, not present the evidence. The evidence elicited should be the product of all available investigation and research.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir. 1998), cited favorably by the government, Judge Kozinski explained the perils of a court conducting a juror bias inquiry with incomplete information or failing to ask critical questions. \"[A] judge investigating juror bias must find facts, not make assumptions . . . [I]t was the trial court's obligation to develop the relevant facts on the record, not merely presume them. The judge's lack of verve in pursuing the matter casts doubt on his findings.\" Id. at 976-77. The Ninth Circuit en banc opinion also was critical of the trial judge's refusal to allow the defense to subpoena a critical witness of the bias. \"Where juror misconduct or bias is credibly alleged, the trial judge cannot wait for defense counsel to spoon feed him every bit of information which would make out a case of juror bias; rather, the judge has an independent responsibility to satisfy himself that the allegation of bias is unfounded.\" Id. at 978.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the Court is charged with the responsibility questioning Juror No. 50, what resources will the Court use to uncover any statements and misstatements made by Juror No. 50? Will the Court investigate Juror No. 50's motives? Will the Court hire an investigator to find all of the posts made by Juror No. 50 about the trial? Having witnessed Juror No. 50 during the trial and having previously questioned Juror No. 50 -- both through a written questionnaire and in person -- under the government's farcical hearing the Court would be a (1) witness, (2) inquisitor, (3) factfinder and (4) sole decision maker. These multiple, conflicted, roles are no model of due process.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009215",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kozinski"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Ninth Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22",
      "1998"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 616",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009215"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the issue of juror bias and the role of the court in investigating such allegations. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}