mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009803.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "643",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 49\n\njurors—that were included on the list of jurors that the parties agreed should proceed to voir dire—that the Court “thought should be considered for excusing.” Id. at 3:5-11. While the Government did not object to the Court’s proposal, defense counsel objected to excusing four of the 13 prospective jurors; those four proceeded to voir dire. Id. at 3:12-16. On November 15, 2021, the Court calculated that the parties had agreed that 231 of the 694 prospective jurors should proceed to voir dire, which the Court determined was a “sufficient number to get to the number of jurors that we need.” Id. at 4:9-13. Thus, the Court had no occasion to and did not rule on whether to strike the prospective jurors whom only one party had challenged for cause.1 The Court indicated at the November 15 conference that it planned to qualify 50 to 60 of the 231 jurors after voir dire. Id. at 4:19-20.\n\nOn November 16, 2021, the Court commenced the voir dire portion of the jury selection process. The Court asked prospective jurors several follow-up questions to questions in the jury questionnaire which prospective jurors had answered affirmatively, including, for example, the prospective jurors’ familiarity through the media with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein; the prospective jurors’ history (or that of a friend or family member) of prior sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault; and the prospective jurors’ experience (or that of a relative or close friend)\n\n1 The defendant is therefore incorrect when she asserts that “[t]he Court granted all 23 of the[] challenges for cause made by the defense” that the Government did not agree with. (Def. Mem. at 10). Similarly misleading is the defendant’s statement that “the parties jointly agreed to excuse 67 of the 114 who answered ‘yes’ when asked if they had been a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.” (Def. Memo. at 9). That assertion fails to note that a significant number of those prospective jurors had stated that they could not be fair and impartial for a number of reasons, including their familiarity through the media with the defendant and Epstein; that the Government agreed to strike or excuse many of those jurors for reasons other than their responses to Question 48; and that the Court did not ultimately rule on whether any of those jurors should be struck for cause.\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00009803",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "jurors—that were included on the list of jurors that the parties agreed should proceed to voir dire—that the Court “thought should be considered for excusing.” Id. at 3:5-11. While the Government did not object to the Court’s proposal, defense counsel objected to excusing four of the 13 prospective jurors; those four proceeded to voir dire. Id. at 3:12-16. On November 15, 2021, the Court calculated that the parties had agreed that 231 of the 694 prospective jurors should proceed to voir dire, which the Court determined was a “sufficient number to get to the number of jurors that we need.” Id. at 4:9-13. Thus, the Court had no occasion to and did not rule on whether to strike the prospective jurors whom only one party had challenged for cause.1 The Court indicated at the November 15 conference that it planned to qualify 50 to 60 of the 231 jurors after voir dire. Id. at 4:19-20.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On November 16, 2021, the Court commenced the voir dire portion of the jury selection process. The Court asked prospective jurors several follow-up questions to questions in the jury questionnaire which prospective jurors had answered affirmatively, including, for example, the prospective jurors’ familiarity through the media with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein; the prospective jurors’ history (or that of a friend or family member) of prior sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault; and the prospective jurors’ experience (or that of a relative or close friend)",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The defendant is therefore incorrect when she asserts that “[t]he Court granted all 23 of the[] challenges for cause made by the defense” that the Government did not agree with. (Def. Mem. at 10). Similarly misleading is the defendant’s statement that “the parties jointly agreed to excuse 67 of the 114 who answered ‘yes’ when asked if they had been a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.” (Def. Memo. at 9). That assertion fails to note that a significant number of those prospective jurors had stated that they could not be fair and impartial for a number of reasons, including their familiarity through the media with the defendant and Epstein; that the Government agreed to strike or excuse many of those jurors for reasons other than their responses to Question 48; and that the Court did not ultimately rule on whether any of those jurors should be struck for cause.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009803",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 15, 2021",
      "November 16, 2021",
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 643",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009803"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of a 49-page document."
}