33%, more processing, more data, dedupe etc

.eleventy.js

@@ -5,6 +5,26 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
   // Copy results directory to output
   eleventyConfig.addPassthroughCopy({ "./results": "documents" });
 
+  // Load deduplication mappings if available
+  let dedupeMappings = { people: {}, organizations: {}, locations: {} };
+  const dedupeFile = path.join(__dirname, 'dedupe.json');
+  if (fs.existsSync(dedupeFile)) {
+    try {
+      dedupeMappings = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(dedupeFile, 'utf8'));
+      console.log('✅ Loaded deduplication mappings from dedupe.json');
+    } catch (e) {
+      console.warn('⚠️  Could not load dedupe.json:', e.message);
+    }
+  } else {
+    console.log('ℹ️  No dedupe.json found - entities will not be deduplicated');
+  }
+
+  // Helper function to apply deduplication mapping
+  function applyDedupe(entityType, entityName) {
+    if (!entityName) return entityName;
+    return dedupeMappings[entityType]?.[entityName] || entityName;
+  }
+
   // Cache the documents data - only compute once
   let cachedDocuments = null;
 
@@ -118,6 +138,15 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
       // Get all unique raw document numbers (for display)
       const rawDocNums = [...new Set(docPages.map(p => p.document_metadata?.document_number).filter(Boolean))];
 
+      // Apply deduplication to document entities
+      const deduplicatedEntities = {
+        people: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.people).map(p => applyDedupe('people', p)))],
+        organizations: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.organizations).map(o => applyDedupe('organizations', o)))],
+        locations: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.locations).map(l => applyDedupe('locations', l)))],
+        dates: Array.from(allEntities.dates),
+        reference_numbers: Array.from(allEntities.reference_numbers)
+      };
+
       return {
         unique_id: normalizedDocNum,  // Normalized version for unique URLs
         document_number: rawDocNums.length === 1 ? rawDocNums[0] : normalizedDocNum, // Show original if consistent, else normalized
@@ -125,13 +154,7 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
         pages: docPages,
         page_count: docPages.length,
         document_metadata: firstPage.document_metadata,
-        entities: {
-          people: Array.from(allEntities.people),
-          organizations: Array.from(allEntities.organizations),
-          locations: Array.from(allEntities.locations),
-          dates: Array.from(allEntities.dates),
-          reference_numbers: Array.from(allEntities.reference_numbers)
-        },
+        entities: deduplicatedEntities,
         full_text: docPages.map(p => p.full_text).join('\n\n--- PAGE BREAK ---\n\n'),
         folder: folders.join(', '),  // Show all folders if document spans multiple
         folders: folders  // Keep array for reference
@@ -142,6 +165,23 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
     return documents;
   }
 
+  // Load document analyses if available
+  eleventyConfig.addGlobalData("analyses", () => {
+    const analysesFile = path.join(__dirname, 'analyses.json');
+    if (fs.existsSync(analysesFile)) {
+      try {
+        const data = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(analysesFile, 'utf8'));
+        console.log(`✅ Loaded ${data.analyses?.length || 0} document analyses`);
+        return data.analyses || [];
+      } catch (e) {
+        console.warn('⚠️  Could not load analyses.json:', e.message);
+        return [];
+      }
+    }
+    console.log('ℹ️  No analyses.json found - run analyze_documents.py to generate');
+    return [];
+  });
+
   // Add global data - load all pages and group into documents
   eleventyConfig.addGlobalData("documents", getDocuments);
 
@@ -156,27 +196,30 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
     const documentTypes = new Map();
 
     documentsData.forEach(doc => {
-      // People
+      // People (with deduplication)
       if (doc.entities?.people) {
         doc.entities.people.forEach(person => {
-          if (!people.has(person)) people.set(person, []);
-          people.get(person).push(doc);
+          const canonicalName = applyDedupe('people', person);
+          if (!people.has(canonicalName)) people.set(canonicalName, []);
+          people.get(canonicalName).push(doc);
         });
       }
 
-      // Organizations
+      // Organizations (with deduplication)
       if (doc.entities?.organizations) {
         doc.entities.organizations.forEach(org => {
-          if (!organizations.has(org)) organizations.set(org, []);
-          organizations.get(org).push(doc);
+          const canonicalName = applyDedupe('organizations', org);
+          if (!organizations.has(canonicalName)) organizations.set(canonicalName, []);
+          organizations.get(canonicalName).push(doc);
         });
       }
 
-      // Locations
+      // Locations (with deduplication)
       if (doc.entities?.locations) {
         doc.entities.locations.forEach(loc => {
-          if (!locations.has(loc)) locations.set(loc, []);
-          locations.get(loc).push(doc);
+          const canonicalName = applyDedupe('locations', loc);
+          if (!locations.has(canonicalName)) locations.set(canonicalName, []);
+          locations.get(canonicalName).push(doc);
         });
       }
 
@@ -196,12 +239,42 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
       }
     });
 
+    // Deduplicate document arrays (remove duplicate document references)
+    const dedupeDocArray = (docs) => {
+      const seen = new Set();
+      return docs.filter(doc => {
+        if (seen.has(doc.unique_id)) return false;
+        seen.add(doc.unique_id);
+        return true;
+      });
+    };
+
     return {
-      people: Array.from(people.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      organizations: Array.from(organizations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      locations: Array.from(locations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      dates: Array.from(dates.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      documentTypes: Array.from(documentTypes.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({ name, docs, count: docs.length })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count)
+      people: Array.from(people.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      organizations: Array.from(organizations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      locations: Array.from(locations.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      dates: Array.from(dates.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
+      documentTypes: Array.from(documentTypes.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
+        name,
+        docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
+        count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
+      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count)
     };
   });
 

README.md

@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ This project automatically processes thousands of scanned document pages using A
   - Locations
   - Dates
   - Reference numbers
+- **Entity Deduplication**: AI-powered merging of duplicate entities (e.g., "Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+- **AI Document Analysis**: Generates summaries, key topics, key people, and significance for each document
 - **Document Reconstruction**: Groups scanned pages back into complete documents
 - **Searchable Interface**: Browse by person, organization, location, date, or document type
 - **Static Site**: Fast, lightweight, works anywhere
@@ -30,10 +32,14 @@ This project automatically processes thousands of scanned document pages using A
 ```
 .
 ├── process_images.py       # Python script to OCR images using AI
+├── deduplicate.py          # Python script to deduplicate entities
+├── analyze_documents.py    # Python script to generate AI summaries
 ├── requirements.txt         # Python dependencies
 ├── .env.example            # Example environment configuration
 ├── downloads/              # Place document images here
 ├── results/                # Extracted JSON data per document
+├── dedupe.json             # Entity deduplication mappings (generated)
+├── analyses.json           # AI document analyses (generated)
 ├── src/                    # 11ty source files for website
 ├── .eleventy.js            # Static site generator configuration
 └── _site/                  # Generated static website (after build)
@@ -80,8 +86,84 @@ The script will:
 - Extract text, entities, and metadata
 - Save results to `./results/{folder}/{imagename}.json`
 - Track progress in `processing_index.json` (resume-friendly)
+- Log failed files for later cleanup
 
-### 4. Generate Website
+**If processing fails or you need to retry failed files:**
+```bash
+# Check for failures (dry run)
+python cleanup_failed.py
+
+# Remove failed files from processed list (so they can be retried)
+python cleanup_failed.py --doit
+
+# Also delete corrupt JSON files
+python cleanup_failed.py --doit --delete-invalid-json
+```
+
+### 4. Deduplicate Entities (Optional but Recommended)
+
+The LLM may extract the same entity with different spellings (e.g., "Epstein", "Jeffrey Epstein", "J. Epstein"). Run the deduplication script to merge these:
+
+```bash
+python deduplicate.py
+
+# Options:
+# --batch-size N     # Process N entities per batch (default: 50)
+# --show-stats       # Show deduplication stats without processing
+```
+
+This will:
+- Scan all JSON files in `./results/`
+- Use AI to identify duplicate entities across people, organizations, and locations
+- Create a `dedupe.json` mapping file
+- The website build will automatically use this mapping
+
+**Example dedupe.json:**
+```json
+{
+  "people": {
+    "Epstein": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+    "J. Epstein": "Jeffrey Epstein",
+    "Jeffrey Epstein": "Jeffrey Epstein"
+  },
+  "organizations": {...},
+  "locations": {...}
+}
+```
+
+### 5. Analyze Documents (Optional but Recommended)
+
+Generate AI summaries and insights for each document:
+
+```bash
+python analyze_documents.py
+
+# Options:
+# --limit N          # Analyze only N documents (for testing)
+# --force            # Re-analyze all documents (ignore existing)
+```
+
+This will:
+- Group pages into documents (matching the website logic)
+- Send each document's full text to the AI
+- Generate summaries, key topics, key people, and significance analysis
+- Save results to `analyses.json`
+- Resume-friendly (skips already-analyzed documents)
+
+**Example analysis output:**
+```json
+{
+  "document_type": "deposition",
+  "key_topics": ["Flight logs", "Private aircraft", "Passenger manifests"],
+  "key_people": [
+    {"name": "Jeffrey Epstein", "role": "Aircraft owner"}
+  ],
+  "significance": "Documents flight records showing passenger lists...",
+  "summary": "This deposition contains testimony regarding..."
+}
+```
+
+### 6. Generate Website
 
 Build the static site from the processed data:
 
@@ -90,6 +172,11 @@ npm run build    # Build static site to _site/
 npm start        # Development server with live reload
 ```
 
+The build process will automatically:
+- Apply deduplication if `dedupe.json` exists
+- Load document analyses if `analyses.json` exists
+- Generate a searchable analyses page
+
 ## How It Works
 
 1. **Document Processing**: Images are sent to an AI vision model that extracts:
@@ -147,6 +234,45 @@ The code in this repository is open source and free to use. The documents themse
 
 **Repository**: https://github.com/epstein-docs/epstein-docs
 
+## Future: Relationship Graphs
+
+Once entities are deduplicated, the next step is to visualize relationships between people, organizations, and locations. Potential approaches:
+
+### Static Graph Generation
+
+1. **Pre-generate graph data** during the build process:
+   - Build a relationships JSON file showing connections (e.g., which people appear in the same documents)
+   - Generate D3.js/vis.js compatible graph data
+   - Include in static site for client-side rendering
+
+2. **Graph types to consider**:
+   - **Co-occurrence network**: People who appear together in documents
+   - **Document timeline**: Documents plotted by date with entity connections
+   - **Organization membership**: People connected to organizations
+   - **Location network**: People and organizations connected by locations
+
+3. **Implementation ideas**:
+   - Use D3.js force-directed graph for interactive visualization
+   - Use Cytoscape.js for more complex network analysis
+   - Generate static SVG graphs for each major entity
+   - Add graph pages to the 11ty build (e.g., `/graphs/people/`, `/graphs/timeline/`)
+
+### Data Structure for Graphs
+
+```json
+{
+  "nodes": [
+    {"id": "Jeffrey Epstein", "type": "person", "doc_count": 250},
+    {"id": "Ghislaine Maxwell", "type": "person", "doc_count": 180}
+  ],
+  "edges": [
+    {"source": "Jeffrey Epstein", "target": "Ghislaine Maxwell", "weight": 85, "shared_docs": 85}
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+The deduplication step is essential for accurate relationship mapping - without it, "Epstein" and "Jeffrey Epstein" would appear as separate nodes.
+
 ## Disclaimer
 
 This is an independent archival project. Documents are sourced from public releases. The maintainers make no representations about completeness or accuracy of the archive.

analyze_documents.py

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Document analysis script using LLM to generate summaries and key insights.
+Groups pages into documents (like .eleventy.js) and analyzes each one.
+"""
+
+import os
+import json
+import re
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Dict, List, Optional
+from collections import defaultdict
+from openai import OpenAI
+from tqdm import tqdm
+from dotenv import load_dotenv
+
+
+class DocumentAnalyzer:
+    """Analyze grouped documents using LLM"""
+
+    def __init__(self, api_url: str, api_key: str, model: str = "gpt-4o"):
+        self.client = OpenAI(api_key=api_key, base_url=api_url)
+        self.model = model
+        self.results_dir = Path("./results")
+        self.analyses_file = Path("./analyses.json")
+
+    def normalize_doc_num(self, doc_num: Optional[str]) -> Optional[str]:
+        """Normalize document number to handle LLM variations"""
+        if not doc_num:
+            return None
+        return str(doc_num).lower().replace(r'[^a-z0-9-]', '-').replace(r'-+', '-').strip('-')
+
+    def load_and_group_documents(self) -> List[Dict]:
+        """Load all JSON files and group into documents (matching .eleventy.js logic)"""
+        pages = []
+
+        # Recursively read all JSON files
+        for json_file in self.results_dir.glob("**/*.json"):
+            try:
+                with open(json_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                    content = json.load(f)
+
+                    relative_path = json_file.relative_to(self.results_dir)
+                    pages.append({
+                        'path': str(relative_path),
+                        'filename': json_file.stem,
+                        'folder': str(relative_path.parent) if relative_path.parent != Path('.') else 'root',
+                        **content
+                    })
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Warning: Could not load {json_file}: {e}")
+
+        print(f"Loaded {len(pages)} pages")
+
+        # Group by normalized document number
+        document_map = defaultdict(list)
+
+        for page in pages:
+            doc_num = page.get('document_metadata', {}).get('document_number')
+
+            if not doc_num:
+                # Use filename as fallback
+                normalized = self.normalize_doc_num(page['filename']) or page['filename']
+            else:
+                normalized = self.normalize_doc_num(doc_num)
+
+            document_map[normalized].append(page)
+
+        # Helper to extract numeric page number
+        def get_page_num(page):
+            page_num = page.get('document_metadata', {}).get('page_number', 0) or 0
+            if isinstance(page_num, int):
+                return page_num
+            # Handle formats like "24 of 66" or "24/66"
+            if isinstance(page_num, str):
+                # Extract first number
+                match = re.search(r'(\d+)', page_num)
+                if match:
+                    return int(match.group(1))
+            return 0
+
+        # Convert to sorted documents
+        documents = []
+        for normalized_num, doc_pages in document_map.items():
+            # Sort pages by page number
+            doc_pages.sort(key=get_page_num)
+
+            # Get metadata
+            first_page = doc_pages[0]
+            raw_doc_nums = list(set(
+                p.get('document_metadata', {}).get('document_number')
+                for p in doc_pages
+                if p.get('document_metadata', {}).get('document_number')
+            ))
+
+            # Combine full text from all pages
+            full_text = '\n\n--- PAGE BREAK ---\n\n'.join(
+                p.get('full_text', '') for p in doc_pages
+            )
+
+            # Collect all entities
+            all_entities = {
+                'people': set(),
+                'organizations': set(),
+                'locations': set(),
+                'dates': set(),
+                'reference_numbers': set()
+            }
+
+            for page in doc_pages:
+                if 'entities' in page:
+                    for key in all_entities.keys():
+                        if key in page['entities']:
+                            all_entities[key].update(page['entities'][key])
+
+            documents.append({
+                'unique_id': normalized_num,
+                'document_number': raw_doc_nums[0] if len(raw_doc_nums) == 1 else normalized_num,
+                'page_count': len(doc_pages),
+                'full_text': full_text,
+                'document_metadata': first_page.get('document_metadata', {}),
+                'entities': {k: sorted(list(v)) for k, v in all_entities.items()}
+            })
+
+        print(f"Grouped into {len(documents)} documents")
+        return sorted(documents, key=lambda d: d['document_number'])
+
+    def get_analysis_prompt(self) -> str:
+        """Get the system prompt for document analysis"""
+        return """You are an expert legal document analyst specializing in court documents, depositions, and legal filings.
+
+Analyze the provided document and return a concise summary with key insights.
+
+Your analysis should include:
+1. **Document Type**: What kind of document is this? (deposition, court filing, letter, email, affidavit, etc.)
+2. **Key Topics**: What are the main subjects/topics discussed? (2-3 bullet points)
+3. **Key People**: Who are the most important people mentioned and their roles?
+4. **Significance**: Why is this document potentially important? What does it reveal or establish?
+5. **Summary**: A 2-3 sentence summary of the document's content
+
+Be factual, concise, and focus on what makes this document notable or significant.
+
+Return ONLY valid JSON in this format:
+{
+  "document_type": "string",
+  "key_topics": ["topic1", "topic2", "topic3"],
+  "key_people": [
+    {"name": "person name", "role": "their role or significance in this doc"}
+  ],
+  "significance": "Why this document matters (1-2 sentences)",
+  "summary": "Brief summary (2-3 sentences)"
+}"""
+
+    def analyze_document(self, document: Dict) -> Optional[Dict]:
+        """Analyze a single document using LLM"""
+        try:
+            # Limit text length for API (keep first ~8000 chars if too long)
+            full_text = document['full_text']
+            if len(full_text) > 8000:
+                full_text = full_text[:8000] + "\n\n[... document continues ...]"
+
+            response = self.client.chat.completions.create(
+                model=self.model,
+                messages=[
+                    {
+                        "role": "system",
+                        "content": self.get_analysis_prompt()
+                    },
+                    {
+                        "role": "user",
+                        "content": f"Analyze this document:\n\n{full_text}"
+                    }
+                ],
+                temperature=0.2,
+                max_tokens=1000
+            )
+
+            content = response.choices[0].message.content.strip()
+
+            # Extract JSON
+            json_match = re.search(r'```(?:json)?\s*\n(.*?)\n```', content, re.DOTALL)
+            if json_match:
+                content = json_match.group(1).strip()
+            else:
+                json_match = re.search(r'\{.*\}', content, re.DOTALL)
+                if json_match:
+                    content = json_match.group(0).strip()
+
+            analysis = json.loads(content)
+
+            return {
+                'document_id': document['unique_id'],
+                'document_number': document['document_number'],
+                'page_count': document['page_count'],
+                'analysis': analysis
+            }
+
+        except Exception as e:
+            print(f"Error analyzing document {document['document_number']}: {e}")
+            return None
+
+    def analyze_all(self, limit: Optional[int] = None) -> List[Dict]:
+        """Analyze all documents"""
+        print("=" * 60)
+        print("DOCUMENT ANALYSIS")
+        print("=" * 60)
+
+        # Load existing analyses to resume
+        existing_analyses = {}
+        if self.analyses_file.exists():
+            try:
+                with open(self.analyses_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                    data = json.load(f)
+                    existing_analyses = {a['document_id']: a for a in data.get('analyses', [])}
+                print(f"Found {len(existing_analyses)} existing analyses")
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Could not load existing analyses: {e}")
+
+        documents = self.load_and_group_documents()
+
+        if limit:
+            documents = documents[:limit]
+            print(f"Limited to {limit} documents for this run")
+
+        analyses = []
+        skipped = 0
+
+        for doc in tqdm(documents, desc="Analyzing documents"):
+            # Skip if already analyzed
+            if doc['unique_id'] in existing_analyses:
+                analyses.append(existing_analyses[doc['unique_id']])
+                skipped += 1
+                continue
+
+            analysis = self.analyze_document(doc)
+            if analysis:
+                analyses.append(analysis)
+                # Save incrementally
+                self.save_analyses(analyses)
+
+        print(f"\n✅ Analyzed {len(analyses) - skipped} new documents")
+        print(f"   Skipped {skipped} already-analyzed documents")
+        print(f"   Total analyses: {len(analyses)}")
+
+        return analyses
+
+    def save_analyses(self, analyses: List[Dict]):
+        """Save analyses to JSON file"""
+        output = {
+            'total': len(analyses),
+            'analyses': analyses
+        }
+
+        with open(self.analyses_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+            json.dump(output, f, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False)
+
+
+def main():
+    load_dotenv()
+
+    import argparse
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Analyze documents using LLM")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-url", help="OpenAI-compatible API base URL")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-key", help="API key")
+    parser.add_argument("--model", help="Model name")
+    parser.add_argument("--limit", type=int, help="Limit number of documents to analyze")
+    parser.add_argument("--force", action="store_true", help="Re-analyze all documents (ignore existing)")
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    api_url = args.api_url or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_URL")
+    api_key = args.api_key or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY")
+    model = args.model or os.getenv("OPENAI_MODEL", "gpt-4o")
+
+    analyzer = DocumentAnalyzer(api_url, api_key, model)
+
+    # Clear existing if force flag
+    if args.force and analyzer.analyses_file.exists():
+        analyzer.analyses_file.unlink()
+        print("Removed existing analyses (--force mode)")
+
+    analyses = analyzer.analyze_all(limit=args.limit)
+    analyzer.save_analyses(analyses)
+
+    print(f"\n✅ Saved analyses to {analyzer.analyses_file}")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()

cleanup_failed.py

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Cleanup script for failed OCR processing.
+Finds files marked as processed but with no valid JSON output, and optionally removes them from the index.
+"""
+
+import os
+import json
+from pathlib import Path
+import argparse
+from typing import Set, List, Dict
+
+
+class FailureCleanup:
+    """Clean up failed processing attempts"""
+
+    def __init__(self, index_file: str = "processing_index.json", downloads_dir: str = "./downloads", results_dir: str = "./results"):
+        self.index_file = Path(index_file)
+        self.downloads_dir = Path(downloads_dir)
+        self.results_dir = Path(results_dir)
+
+    def load_index(self) -> Dict:
+        """Load the processing index"""
+        if not self.index_file.exists():
+            print(f"❌ Index file not found: {self.index_file}")
+            return {"processed_files": [], "failed_files": []}
+
+        with open(self.index_file, 'r') as f:
+            return json.load(f)
+
+    def get_relative_path(self, file_path: Path) -> str:
+        """Get relative path from downloads directory"""
+        try:
+            return str(file_path.relative_to(self.downloads_dir))
+        except ValueError:
+            return str(file_path)
+
+    def check_json_exists(self, relative_path: str) -> bool:
+        """Check if JSON output exists for this file"""
+        # Convert image path to JSON path
+        json_path = self.results_dir / Path(relative_path).with_suffix('.json')
+        return json_path.exists()
+
+    def check_json_valid(self, relative_path: str) -> bool:
+        """Check if JSON output is valid"""
+        json_path = self.results_dir / Path(relative_path).with_suffix('.json')
+        if not json_path.exists():
+            return False
+
+        try:
+            with open(json_path, 'r') as f:
+                json.load(f)
+            return True
+        except Exception:
+            return False
+
+    def find_failures(self) -> Dict[str, List[str]]:
+        """Find all types of failures"""
+        index_data = self.load_index()
+        processed_files = set(index_data.get('processed_files', []))
+        explicit_failures = index_data.get('failed_files', [])
+
+        failures = {
+            'no_json': [],           # Marked processed but no JSON exists
+            'invalid_json': [],      # JSON exists but is invalid/corrupt
+            'explicit_failed': [],   # Listed in failed_files
+            'orphaned_json': []      # JSON exists but not in processed list (shouldn't happen)
+        }
+
+        print("🔍 Scanning for failures...\n")
+
+        # Check each processed file
+        for relative_path in processed_files:
+            if not self.check_json_exists(relative_path):
+                failures['no_json'].append(relative_path)
+            elif not self.check_json_valid(relative_path):
+                failures['invalid_json'].append(relative_path)
+
+        # Add explicit failures
+        for failure in explicit_failures:
+            filename = failure.get('filename') if isinstance(failure, dict) else failure
+            failures['explicit_failed'].append(filename)
+
+        # Find orphaned JSON files (exist but not marked as processed)
+        if self.results_dir.exists():
+            for json_file in self.results_dir.glob("**/*.json"):
+                relative_path = str(json_file.relative_to(self.results_dir).with_suffix(''))
+                # Add back the original extension (assuming .jpg, could be others)
+                for ext in ['.jpg', '.jpeg', '.png', '.gif', '.bmp', '.tiff', '.webp']:
+                    potential_path = relative_path + ext
+                    if potential_path in processed_files:
+                        break
+                else:
+                    # Not found with any extension
+                    failures['orphaned_json'].append(str(json_file.relative_to(self.results_dir)))
+
+        return failures
+
+    def show_report(self, failures: Dict[str, List[str]]):
+        """Display failure report"""
+        print("=" * 70)
+        print("FAILURE REPORT")
+        print("=" * 70)
+
+        total_failures = sum(len(v) for k, v in failures.items() if k != 'orphaned_json')
+
+        if failures['no_json']:
+            print(f"\n❌ NO JSON OUTPUT ({len(failures['no_json'])} files)")
+            print("   Files marked as processed but no JSON result exists:")
+            for f in failures['no_json'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['no_json']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['no_json']) - 10} more")
+
+        if failures['invalid_json']:
+            print(f"\n⚠️  INVALID JSON ({len(failures['invalid_json'])} files)")
+            print("   JSON file exists but is corrupt/invalid:")
+            for f in failures['invalid_json'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['invalid_json']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['invalid_json']) - 10} more")
+
+        if failures['explicit_failed']:
+            print(f"\n📋 EXPLICITLY FAILED ({len(failures['explicit_failed'])} files)")
+            print("   Listed in failed_files in the index:")
+            for f in failures['explicit_failed'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['explicit_failed']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['explicit_failed']) - 10} more")
+
+        if failures['orphaned_json']:
+            print(f"\n👻 ORPHANED JSON ({len(failures['orphaned_json'])} files)")
+            print("   JSON files exist but not marked as processed (shouldn't happen):")
+            for f in failures['orphaned_json'][:10]:
+                print(f"   - {f}")
+            if len(failures['orphaned_json']) > 10:
+                print(f"   ... and {len(failures['orphaned_json']) - 10} more")
+
+        print("\n" + "=" * 70)
+        print(f"TOTAL FAILURES: {total_failures}")
+        print("=" * 70)
+
+    def cleanup(self, failures: Dict[str, List[str]], delete_invalid_json: bool = False):
+        """Remove failed files from processed list"""
+        index_data = self.load_index()
+        processed_files = set(index_data.get('processed_files', []))
+
+        files_to_remove = set()
+
+        # Files to remove from processed list (so they can be retried)
+        files_to_remove.update(failures['no_json'])
+        files_to_remove.update(failures['invalid_json'])
+        files_to_remove.update(failures['explicit_failed'])
+
+        # Remove from processed list
+        original_count = len(processed_files)
+        processed_files -= files_to_remove
+        removed_count = original_count - len(processed_files)
+
+        # Update index
+        index_data['processed_files'] = sorted(list(processed_files))
+        index_data['failed_files'] = []  # Clear failed files list
+
+        # Save updated index
+        with open(self.index_file, 'w') as f:
+            json.dump(index_data, f, indent=2)
+
+        print(f"\n✅ Removed {removed_count} files from processed list")
+        print(f"   These files will be retried on next run")
+
+        # Optionally delete invalid JSON files
+        if delete_invalid_json and failures['invalid_json']:
+            deleted = 0
+            for relative_path in failures['invalid_json']:
+                json_path = self.results_dir / Path(relative_path).with_suffix('.json')
+                if json_path.exists():
+                    json_path.unlink()
+                    deleted += 1
+            print(f"🗑️  Deleted {deleted} invalid JSON files")
+
+
+def main():
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Clean up failed OCR processing attempts")
+    parser.add_argument("--doit", action="store_true", help="Actually perform cleanup (default: dry run)")
+    parser.add_argument("--delete-invalid-json", action="store_true", help="Also delete invalid JSON files")
+    parser.add_argument("--index", default="processing_index.json", help="Index file path")
+    parser.add_argument("--downloads-dir", default="./downloads", help="Downloads directory")
+    parser.add_argument("--results-dir", default="./results", help="Results directory")
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    cleanup = FailureCleanup(
+        index_file=args.index,
+        downloads_dir=args.downloads_dir,
+        results_dir=args.results_dir
+    )
+
+    # Find failures
+    failures = cleanup.find_failures()
+
+    # Show report
+    cleanup.show_report(failures)
+
+    # Check if there's anything to clean
+    total_failures = sum(len(v) for k, v in failures.items() if k != 'orphaned_json')
+    if total_failures == 0:
+        print("\n✨ No failures found - everything looks good!")
+        return
+
+    # Perform cleanup if requested
+    if args.doit:
+        print("\n🚨 PERFORMING CLEANUP...")
+        response = input("Are you sure? This will remove failed files from the processed list. (yes/no): ")
+        if response.lower() == 'yes':
+            cleanup.cleanup(failures, delete_invalid_json=args.delete_invalid_json)
+            print("\n✅ Cleanup complete!")
+        else:
+            print("❌ Cleanup cancelled")
+    else:
+        print("\n💡 This was a DRY RUN - no changes made")
+        print("   Run with --doit to actually remove failed files from the processed list")
+        print("   Add --delete-invalid-json to also delete corrupt JSON files")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()

deduplicate.py

@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""
+Entity deduplication script using LLM to identify and merge duplicate entities.
+Processes all JSON files from ./results/ and creates a dedupe.json mapping file.
+"""
+
+import os
+import json
+import re
+from pathlib import Path
+from typing import Dict, List, Set
+from collections import defaultdict
+from openai import OpenAI
+from tqdm import tqdm
+from dotenv import load_dotenv
+
+
+class EntityDeduplicator:
+    """Deduplicate entities using LLM assistance"""
+
+    def __init__(self, api_url: str, api_key: str, model: str = "gpt-4o"):
+        self.client = OpenAI(api_key=api_key, base_url=api_url)
+        self.model = model
+        self.results_dir = Path("./results")
+        self.dedupe_file = Path("./dedupe.json")
+
+    def load_all_entities(self) -> Dict[str, Set[str]]:
+        """Load all unique entities from all JSON files"""
+        entities = {
+            "people": set(),
+            "organizations": set(),
+            "locations": set()
+        }
+
+        json_files = list(self.results_dir.glob("**/*.json"))
+        print(f"Found {len(json_files)} JSON files to process")
+
+        for json_file in tqdm(json_files, desc="Loading entities"):
+            try:
+                with open(json_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                    data = json.load(f)
+
+                    if "entities" in data:
+                        for entity_type in ["people", "organizations", "locations"]:
+                            if entity_type in data["entities"]:
+                                entities[entity_type].update(data["entities"][entity_type])
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Warning: Could not load {json_file}: {e}")
+
+        return {k: sorted(list(v)) for k, v in entities.items()}
+
+    def get_deduplication_prompt(self, entity_type: str) -> str:
+        """Get the system prompt for deduplication"""
+
+        if entity_type == "people":
+            examples = """Examples:
+{
+  "Jeffrey Epstein": ["Jeffrey Epstein", "JEFFREY EPSTEIN", "Epstein", "EPSTEIN", "J. Epstein", "Jeffrey E. Epstein", "J Epstein", "Jeffery Epstein", "Mr. Epstein", "Jeffrey E.", "Epstein's"],
+  "Ghislaine Maxwell": ["Ghislaine Maxwell", "GHISLAINE MAXWELL", "Maxwell", "G. Maxwell", "Ghislane Maxwell", "Ghislain Maxwell", "Ms. Maxwell"],
+  "Bill Clinton": ["Bill Clinton", "BILL CLINTON", "Clinton", "William Clinton", "William J. Clinton", "President Clinton", "William Jefferson Clinton"],
+  "Prince Andrew": ["Prince Andrew", "PRINCE ANDREW", "Andrew", "Duke of York", "HRH Prince Andrew", "Prince Andrew, Duke of York"]
+}
+
+WRONG EXAMPLES (DO NOT DO THIS):
+{
+  "Mr. Epstein's brother": ["Jeffrey Epstein", "Epstein"] // WRONG - use actual name
+  "The President": ["Bill Clinton"] // WRONG - use actual name
+  "Plaintiff's attorney": ["John Smith"] // WRONG - use actual name
+}"""
+        elif entity_type == "organizations":
+            examples = """Examples:
+{
+  "Federal Bureau of Investigation": ["Federal Bureau of Investigation", "FBI", "F.B.I.", "FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION", "Federal Bureau Of Investigation"],
+  "United States District Court": ["United States District Court", "U.S. District Court", "USDC", "District Court"],
+  "Victoria's Secret": ["Victoria's Secret", "VICTORIA'S SECRET", "Victorias Secret", "Victoria Secret"]
+}"""
+        else:  # locations
+            examples = """Examples:
+{
+  "New York City": ["New York City", "NEW YORK CITY", "NYC", "New York", "New York, NY", "New York City, NY", "Manhattan"],
+  "Little Saint James": ["Little Saint James", "LITTLE SAINT JAMES", "Little St. James", "Little St James", "LSJ"],
+  "Palm Beach": ["Palm Beach", "PALM BEACH", "Palm Beach, Florida", "Palm Beach, FL"]
+}"""
+
+        return f"""You are an expert at identifying and merging duplicate entities in legal documents.
+
+Given a list of {entity_type}, identify which names refer to the same entity and group them under their canonical name.
+
+CRITICAL RULES FOR CANONICAL NAMES:
+
+**What makes a GOOD canonical name:**
+- Actual proper names (e.g., "Jeffrey Epstein", not "Mr. Epstein's brother")
+- Full first name + last name (e.g., "Jeffrey Epstein", not just "Epstein")
+- Include middle initial if commonly used (e.g., "William J. Clinton")
+- Use the most formal/complete version of the actual name
+
+**What is a BAD canonical name (NEVER USE THESE):**
+- Descriptive phrases (e.g., "Mr. Epstein's brother", "The defendant", "Plaintiff's attorney")
+- Titles alone (e.g., "The President", "The Judge")
+- Possessive forms (e.g., "Epstein's", "Maxwell's")
+- Roles or relationships (e.g., "co-conspirator", "witness", "victim")
+- Generic references (e.g., "he", "she", "defendant")
+
+**Deduplication Rules:**
+1. **Use Proper Names Only**: The canonical name MUST be an actual person's name
+2. **Case Insensitive**: "EPSTEIN", "Epstein", "epstein" are all the same
+3. **Prefer Full Names**: "Jeffrey Epstein" not "Epstein" or "J. Epstein"
+4. **Merge Variants**:
+   - Last name only → Full name (e.g., "Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+   - Initials → Full name (e.g., "J. Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+   - Titles with same person (e.g., "Mr. Epstein" → "Jeffrey Epstein")
+   - Honorifics (Dr., Mr., Ms., President, Judge, etc.) → actual name
+5. **OCR Errors**: Merge spelling variations (e.g., "Jeffery" = "Jeffrey")
+6. **Whitespace/Punctuation**: Ignore differences in spacing, periods, commas
+
+For PEOPLE specifically:
+- The canonical name should be First Name + Last Name (or First + Middle Initial + Last)
+- Merge all variants: full name, last name only, initials, titles, nicknames
+- NEVER use descriptive phrases like "Mr. X's brother" as canonical
+
+For ORGANIZATIONS:
+- Merge: Full name with abbreviations (FBI = Federal Bureau of Investigation)
+- Merge: Different legal forms (Inc., LLC, Corp., etc.)
+- Merge: With/without "The" prefix
+
+For LOCATIONS:
+- Merge: City abbreviations (NYC = New York City)
+- Merge: With/without state (Palm Beach = Palm Beach, FL)
+- Merge: Common neighborhood/borough names with city
+
+{examples}
+
+IMPORTANT:
+- Every entity must appear in exactly one group
+- The canonical name MUST be a proper name (First + Last), NOT a description
+- Use the most complete PROPER NAME as canonical (e.g., "Jeffrey Epstein" not "Mr. Epstein's brother")
+- When in doubt between a descriptive phrase and a name, ALWAYS choose the actual name
+- Merge aggressively - group all variants of the same person together
+- Include all variations in the variants array, including the canonical name itself
+
+VALIDATION:
+- Ask yourself: "Is this canonical name an actual person's name?" If no, find the actual name from the variants
+- Examples of GOOD canonical names: "Jeffrey Epstein", "Bill Clinton", "John Smith"
+- Examples of BAD canonical names: "Mr. Epstein's brother", "The defendant", "Plaintiff"
+
+Return ONLY valid JSON with NO extra text, markdown, or explanations."""
+
+    def deduplicate_entities(self, entities: List[str], entity_type: str, batch_size: int = 50) -> Dict[str, str]:
+        """Use LLM to deduplicate entities, processing in batches"""
+        if not entities:
+            return {}
+
+        print(f"\nDeduplicating {len(entities)} {entity_type}...")
+
+        # Process in batches
+        all_mappings = {}
+        batches = [entities[i:i + batch_size] for i in range(0, len(entities), batch_size)]
+
+        for batch_idx, batch in enumerate(tqdm(batches, desc=f"Processing {entity_type} batches")):
+            try:
+                response = self.client.chat.completions.create(
+                    model=self.model,
+                    messages=[
+                        {
+                            "role": "system",
+                            "content": self.get_deduplication_prompt(entity_type)
+                        },
+                        {
+                            "role": "user",
+                            "content": f"Identify duplicates in this list of {entity_type}:\n\n" + "\n".join(f"- {e}" for e in batch)
+                        }
+                    ],
+                    temperature=0.1,
+                    max_tokens=4096
+                )
+
+                content = response.choices[0].message.content.strip()
+
+                # Robust JSON extraction
+                # 1. Try to find JSON between markdown code fences
+                json_match = re.search(r'```(?:json)?\s*\n(.*?)\n```', content, re.DOTALL)
+                if json_match:
+                    content = json_match.group(1).strip()
+                else:
+                    # 2. Try to find JSON between curly braces
+                    json_match = re.search(r'\{.*\}', content, re.DOTALL)
+                    if json_match:
+                        content = json_match.group(0).strip()
+                    else:
+                        # 3. Strip markdown manually
+                        if content.startswith('```json'):
+                            content = content[7:]
+                        elif content.startswith('```'):
+                            content = content[3:]
+                        if content.endswith('```'):
+                            content = content[:-3]
+                        content = content.strip()
+
+                # Try to parse JSON
+                try:
+                    groups = json.loads(content)
+                except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
+                    print(f"\nJSON parsing error in batch {batch_idx}:")
+                    print(f"Error: {e}")
+                    print(f"Content preview: {content[:500]}")
+                    # Try to salvage by finding the first complete JSON object
+                    try:
+                        # Find first { and matching }
+                        start = content.find('{')
+                        if start == -1:
+                            raise ValueError("No JSON object found")
+
+                        brace_count = 0
+                        end = start
+                        for i in range(start, len(content)):
+                            if content[i] == '{':
+                                brace_count += 1
+                            elif content[i] == '}':
+                                brace_count -= 1
+                                if brace_count == 0:
+                                    end = i + 1
+                                    break
+
+                        if end > start:
+                            content = content[start:end]
+                            groups = json.loads(content)
+                            print(f"✓ Recovered JSON from malformed response")
+                        else:
+                            raise ValueError("Could not find complete JSON object")
+                    except Exception as salvage_error:
+                        print(f"Could not salvage JSON: {salvage_error}")
+                        raise e
+
+                # Validate and convert groups to individual mappings
+                for canonical, variants in groups.items():
+                    # Validate canonical name for people
+                    if entity_type == "people":
+                        # Check for bad canonical names
+                        bad_patterns = [
+                            r"'s\s+(brother|sister|friend|attorney|lawyer|associate)",
+                            r"^(the|a)\s+(defendant|plaintiff|witness|victim|judge|president)",
+                            r"^mr\.|^ms\.|^mrs\.|^dr\.\s*$",
+                            r"co-conspirator|witness\s+\d+|victim\s+\d+",
+                            r"'s$"  # ends with possessive
+                        ]
+
+                        canonical_lower = canonical.lower()
+                        for pattern in bad_patterns:
+                            if re.search(pattern, canonical_lower):
+                                # This is a bad canonical name - try to find a better one
+                                # Look for the longest actual name in the variants
+                                better_name = max(
+                                    (v for v in variants if len(v.split()) >= 2 and not re.search(pattern, v.lower())),
+                                    key=len,
+                                    default=canonical
+                                )
+                                if better_name != canonical:
+                                    print(f"  ⚠️  Fixed bad canonical: '{canonical}' → '{better_name}'")
+                                    canonical = better_name
+                                break
+
+                    for variant in variants:
+                        all_mappings[variant] = canonical
+
+            except Exception as e:
+                print(f"Warning: Error processing batch {batch_idx}: {e}")
+                # If batch fails, map each entity to itself
+                for entity in batch:
+                    if entity not in all_mappings:
+                        all_mappings[entity] = entity
+
+        return all_mappings
+
+    def merge_batches(self, mappings: Dict[str, str]) -> Dict[str, str]:
+        """Merge mappings from multiple batches to ensure consistency"""
+        # Group by canonical names
+        groups = defaultdict(set)
+        for variant, canonical in mappings.items():
+            groups[canonical].add(variant)
+
+        # Pick the most common canonical name for each group
+        final_mappings = {}
+        for canonical, variants in groups.items():
+            # Use the longest name as canonical (usually most complete)
+            true_canonical = max(variants, key=len)
+            for variant in variants:
+                final_mappings[variant] = true_canonical
+
+        return final_mappings
+
+    def process_all(self, batch_size: int = 50) -> Dict[str, Dict[str, str]]:
+        """Process all entity types"""
+        print("=" * 60)
+        print("ENTITY DEDUPLICATION")
+        print("=" * 60)
+
+        # Load all entities
+        all_entities = self.load_all_entities()
+
+        print(f"\nEntity counts:")
+        for entity_type, entity_list in all_entities.items():
+            print(f"  {entity_type}: {len(entity_list)}")
+
+        # Deduplicate each type
+        dedupe_mappings = {}
+        for entity_type in ["people", "organizations", "locations"]:
+            mappings = self.deduplicate_entities(
+                all_entities[entity_type],
+                entity_type,
+                batch_size=batch_size
+            )
+            dedupe_mappings[entity_type] = self.merge_batches(mappings)
+
+            # Show stats
+            unique_after = len(set(dedupe_mappings[entity_type].values()))
+            print(f"  {entity_type}: {len(all_entities[entity_type])} → {unique_after} unique entities")
+
+        return dedupe_mappings
+
+    def save_dedupe_file(self, mappings: Dict[str, Dict[str, str]]):
+        """Save deduplication mappings to JSON file"""
+        with open(self.dedupe_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+            json.dump(mappings, f, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False)
+
+        print(f"\n✅ Deduplication mappings saved to {self.dedupe_file}")
+
+    def load_existing_dedupe(self) -> Dict[str, Dict[str, str]]:
+        """Load existing dedupe file if it exists"""
+        if self.dedupe_file.exists():
+            with open(self.dedupe_file, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+                return json.load(f)
+        return {"people": {}, "organizations": {}, "locations": {}}
+
+
+def main():
+    load_dotenv()
+
+    import argparse
+    parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Deduplicate entities using LLM")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-url", help="OpenAI-compatible API base URL")
+    parser.add_argument("--api-key", help="API key")
+    parser.add_argument("--model", help="Model name")
+    parser.add_argument("--batch-size", type=int, default=50, help="Entities per batch (default: 50)")
+    parser.add_argument("--show-stats", action="store_true", help="Show current deduplication stats and exit")
+
+    args = parser.parse_args()
+
+    api_url = args.api_url or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_URL")
+    api_key = args.api_key or os.getenv("OPENAI_API_KEY")
+    model = args.model or os.getenv("OPENAI_MODEL", "gpt-4o")
+
+    deduplicator = EntityDeduplicator(api_url, api_key, model)
+
+    if args.show_stats:
+        # Just show stats
+        existing = deduplicator.load_existing_dedupe()
+        all_entities = deduplicator.load_all_entities()
+
+        print("\nCurrent deduplication status:")
+        for entity_type in ["people", "organizations", "locations"]:
+            raw_count = len(all_entities[entity_type])
+            if existing.get(entity_type):
+                unique_count = len(set(existing[entity_type].values()))
+                print(f"  {entity_type}: {raw_count} raw → {unique_count} unique")
+            else:
+                print(f"  {entity_type}: {raw_count} (not deduplicated)")
+        return
+
+    # Process and save
+    mappings = deduplicator.process_all(batch_size=args.batch_size)
+    deduplicator.save_dedupe_file(mappings)
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()

process_images.py

@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ Processes images from Downloads folder and extracts structured data.
 
 import os
 import json
+import re
 import base64
 from pathlib import Path
 from typing import Dict, List, Optional
@@ -48,13 +49,17 @@ class ImageProcessor:
                 return set()
         return set()
 
-    def save_index(self):
+    def save_index(self, failed_files=None):
         """Save the current index of processed files"""
+        data = {
+            'processed_files': sorted(list(self.processed_files)),
+            'last_updated': str(Path.cwd())
+        }
+        if failed_files:
+            data['failed_files'] = failed_files
+
         with open(self.index_file, 'w') as f:
-            json.dump({
-                'processed_files': sorted(list(self.processed_files)),
-                'last_updated': str(Path.cwd())
-            }, f, indent=2)
+            json.dump(data, f, indent=2)
 
     def mark_processed(self, filename: str):
         """Mark a file as processed and update index"""
@@ -169,17 +174,58 @@ Return ONLY valid JSON in this exact structure:
             # Parse response
             content = response.choices[0].message.content
 
-            # Parse JSON from content (strip markdown if present)
-            content = content.strip()
-            if content.startswith('```json'):
-                content = content[7:]
-            if content.startswith('```'):
-                content = content[3:]
-            if content.endswith('```'):
-                content = content[:-3]
+            # Robust JSON extraction
             content = content.strip()
 
-            extracted_data = json.loads(content)
+            # 1. Try to find JSON between markdown code fences
+            json_match = re.search(r'```(?:json)?\s*\n(.*?)\n```', content, re.DOTALL)
+            if json_match:
+                content = json_match.group(1).strip()
+            else:
+                # 2. Try to find JSON between curly braces
+                json_match = re.search(r'\{.*\}', content, re.DOTALL)
+                if json_match:
+                    content = json_match.group(0).strip()
+                else:
+                    # 3. Strip markdown manually
+                    if content.startswith('```json'):
+                        content = content[7:]
+                    elif content.startswith('```'):
+                        content = content[3:]
+                    if content.endswith('```'):
+                        content = content[:-3]
+                    content = content.strip()
+
+            # Try to parse JSON
+            try:
+                extracted_data = json.loads(content)
+            except json.JSONDecodeError as e:
+                # Try to salvage by finding the first complete JSON object
+                try:
+                    # Find first { and matching }
+                    start = content.find('{')
+                    if start == -1:
+                        raise ValueError("No JSON object found")
+
+                    brace_count = 0
+                    end = start
+                    for i in range(start, len(content)):
+                        if content[i] == '{':
+                            brace_count += 1
+                        elif content[i] == '}':
+                            brace_count -= 1
+                            if brace_count == 0:
+                                end = i + 1
+                                break
+
+                    if end > start:
+                        content = content[start:end]
+                        extracted_data = json.loads(content)
+                    else:
+                        raise ValueError("Could not find complete JSON object")
+                except Exception:
+                    # If we can't salvage it, raise the original error
+                    raise e
 
             return ProcessingResult(
                 filename=self.get_relative_path(image_path),
@@ -216,6 +262,8 @@ Return ONLY valid JSON in this exact structure:
             return []
 
         results = []
+        failed_files = []
+
         with concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=max_workers) as executor:
             futures = {executor.submit(self.process_image, img): img for img in image_files}
 
@@ -227,16 +275,24 @@ Return ONLY valid JSON in this exact structure:
                     # Save individual result to file
                     if result.success:
                         self.save_individual_result(result)
+                        tqdm.write(f"✅ Processed: {result.filename}")
+                    else:
+                        # Track failed files
+                        failed_files.append({
+                            'filename': result.filename,
+                            'error': result.error
+                        })
+                        tqdm.write(f"❌ Failed: {result.filename} - {result.error}")
 
                     # Mark as processed regardless of success/failure
                     self.mark_processed(result.filename)
 
                     pbar.update(1)
 
-                    if not result.success:
-                        tqdm.write(f"❌ Failed: {result.filename} - {result.error}")
-                    else:
-                        tqdm.write(f"✅ Processed: {result.filename}")
+        # Save failed files to index for reference
+        if failed_files:
+            self.save_index(failed_files=failed_files)
+            print(f"\n⚠️  {len(failed_files)} files failed - logged in {self.index_file}")
 
         return results
 

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008986.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 13\n50 will maintain his ability to protect his compelling and legitimate right to privacy, specifically regarding his prior history with sexual assault. Additionally, allowing Juror 50 to intervene will assist this Court in determining how to conduct an appropriate inquiry into the subject, by allowing his an opportunity to fully and fairly brief the Court on the relevant issues. Moreover, the interests of justice and judicial economy will be served if Juror 50 is permitted to intervene at this point in time, as the same will allow Juror 50 to identify and assert any fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination before any hearing is held pursuant to an inquiry directed by the Court.\nA. Juror 50's Request to Intervene\n1. Jurors have compelling and legitimate privacy rights.\nThe United States Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged that Jurors can have \"compelling\" and \"legitimate\" privacy interests that warrants sealing the record as to certain statements given by the jurors. Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County, 464 US 501, 511-12 (1984). In Press-Enter. Co., the Supreme Court expressly determined that forcing an individual to disclose details of a sexual assault may justify holding closed hearings and sealing the record due to \"the embarrassment and emotional trauma from the very disclosure of the episode\". Id. In Press-Enter. Co., Chief Justice Burger further made clear that forced disclosure of past sexual assault suffered by jurors gave rise to a \"valid privacy right\". Id.\nIn United States v. King, the Second Circuit upheld the ruling by the lower court, which allowed parts of the record in that case to be sealed based on the jurors' privacy interest in intensely personal subjects, as well as upheld the lower court's finding that such interest was heightened by the intense media scrutiny King attracted from the press. United States v King, 140\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00008986",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "50 will maintain his ability to protect his compelling and legitimate right to privacy, specifically regarding his prior history with sexual assault. Additionally, allowing Juror 50 to intervene will assist this Court in determining how to conduct an appropriate inquiry into the subject, by allowing his an opportunity to fully and fairly brief the Court on the relevant issues. Moreover, the interests of justice and judicial economy will be served if Juror 50 is permitted to intervene at this point in time, as the same will allow Juror 50 to identify and assert any fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination before any hearing is held pursuant to an inquiry directed by the Court.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. Juror 50's Request to Intervene",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Jurors have compelling and legitimate privacy rights.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The United States Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged that Jurors can have \"compelling\" and \"legitimate\" privacy interests that warrants sealing the record as to certain statements given by the jurors. Press-Enter. Co. v Superior Ct. of California, Riverside County, 464 US 501, 511-12 (1984). In Press-Enter. Co., the Supreme Court expressly determined that forcing an individual to disclose details of a sexual assault may justify holding closed hearings and sealing the record due to \"the embarrassment and emotional trauma from the very disclosure of the episode\". Id. In Press-Enter. Co., Chief Justice Burger further made clear that forced disclosure of past sexual assault suffered by jurors gave rise to a \"valid privacy right\". Id.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In United States v. King, the Second Circuit upheld the ruling by the lower court, which allowed parts of the record in that case to be sealed based on the jurors' privacy interest in intensely personal subjects, as well as upheld the lower court's finding that such interest was heightened by the intense media scrutiny King attracted from the press. United States v King, 140",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008986",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Chief Justice Burger",
+      "King"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Supreme Court",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "California",
+      "Riverside County"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1984"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 609",
+      "464 US 501",
+      "140"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008987.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 13\n\nF3d 76, 79 (2d Cir 1998) (Citing United States v. King, No. 94 Cr. 455, 1998 WL 50221 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 1998)).\n\nMoreover, conclusion of the trial on which the subject juror served does not remove a jurors' interest in privacy and protection from harassment. See United States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1210-12 (5th Cir.1977).\n\n2. Jurors may face criminal exposure for answers given on jury questionnaires\n\nTo complete the jury questionnaire, jurors must swear to truthfully answer the same under penalty of perjury; jurors are also placed under oath prior to answering questions in voir dire. See e.g., United States v Parse, 789 F3d 83, 88 (2d Cir 2015). A juror who knowingly submits false answers on the jury questionnaire and/or during voir dire testimony may expose himself or herself to arrest and prosecution, while jurors also maintain a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Id., at 91.\n\n3. Intervention in criminal trials may be granted to protect the rights of third parties\n\nIt is indisputable that precedent supports interventions by interested third parties in criminal matters, as such have been repeatedly granted in \"circumstances where 'a third party's constitutional or other federal rights are implicated by the resolution of a particular motion, request, or other issue during the course of a criminal case.'\" United States v. Collyard, case no. 12cr0058, 2013 WL 1346202 at *2 (D. Minn. April 3, 2013) (quoting United States v. Carmichael, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1072 (M.D. Ala. 2004)). For example, courts have allowed the press to intervene in criminal cases to assert the First Amendment rights of the Press. See In re Associated Press, 162 F.3d 503, 506- 507 (7th Cir. 1998). Courts have also allowed\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00008987",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "F3d 76, 79 (2d Cir 1998) (Citing United States v. King, No. 94 Cr. 455, 1998 WL 50221 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 1998)).\n\nMoreover, conclusion of the trial on which the subject juror served does not remove a jurors' interest in privacy and protection from harassment. See United States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1210-12 (5th Cir.1977).\n\n2. Jurors may face criminal exposure for answers given on jury questionnaires\n\nTo complete the jury questionnaire, jurors must swear to truthfully answer the same under penalty of perjury; jurors are also placed under oath prior to answering questions in voir dire. See e.g., United States v Parse, 789 F3d 83, 88 (2d Cir 2015). A juror who knowingly submits false answers on the jury questionnaire and/or during voir dire testimony may expose himself or herself to arrest and prosecution, while jurors also maintain a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. Id., at 91.\n\n3. Intervention in criminal trials may be granted to protect the rights of third parties\n\nIt is indisputable that precedent supports interventions by interested third parties in criminal matters, as such have been repeatedly granted in \"circumstances where 'a third party's constitutional or other federal rights are implicated by the resolution of a particular motion, request, or other issue during the course of a criminal case.'\" United States v. Collyard, case no. 12cr0058, 2013 WL 1346202 at *2 (D. Minn. April 3, 2013) (quoting United States v. Carmichael, 342 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1072 (M.D. Ala. 2004)). For example, courts have allowed the press to intervene in criminal cases to assert the First Amendment rights of the Press. See In re Associated Press, 162 F.3d 503, 506- 507 (7th Cir. 1998). Courts have also allowed",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008987",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Associated Press"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y.",
+      "Minn.",
+      "Ala."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "Feb. 5, 1998",
+      "April 3, 2013",
+      "1998",
+      "1977",
+      "2015",
+      "2004"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "609",
+      "94 Cr. 455",
+      "12cr0058",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008987"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008988.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 13\n\nintervention in criminal cases by third parties who are seeking to prevent the wide dissemination of confidential or privileged information. United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Crawford, 735 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d 602, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “A third-party’s reasonable assertion of privilege with respect to documents to be produced in a criminal action is sufficient grounds on which to grant the third-party’s motion to intervene and to consider the merits of that party’s application.” Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 605-06.\n\nB. Juror 50's Jury Questionnaire should be released to Counsel, but otherwise remain under seal, to provide Juror 50 with a full and fair opportunity to present his position to this Court\n\n1. A copy of the Jury Questionnaire is necessary to comply with Judge Nathan’s January 5th order\n\nIt is necessary for Juror 50 to review his answers to the Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his voir dire testimony, before he is able to comply with Judge Nathan’s order and address the “appropriateness of an inquiry”, into his conduct and his truthfulness of his responses on the Jury Questionnaire. See Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330. It should go without saying that Juror 50 needs to know whether or not the question(s) related to prior sexual abuse were answered by him correctly on his Jury Questionnaire to help determine what an appropriate inquiry would entail, so that the same would also Juror 50’s privacy rights and legitimate interests related to these matters.\n\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00008988",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "intervention in criminal cases by third parties who are seeking to prevent the wide dissemination of confidential or privileged information. United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1979); United States v. Crawford, 735 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d 602, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “A third-party’s reasonable assertion of privilege with respect to documents to be produced in a criminal action is sufficient grounds on which to grant the third-party’s motion to intervene and to consider the merits of that party’s application.” Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 605-06.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. Juror 50's Jury Questionnaire should be released to Counsel, but otherwise remain under seal, to provide Juror 50 with a full and fair opportunity to present his position to this Court",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. A copy of the Jury Questionnaire is necessary to comply with Judge Nathan’s January 5th order",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is necessary for Juror 50 to review his answers to the Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his voir dire testimony, before he is able to comply with Judge Nathan’s order and address the “appropriateness of an inquiry”, into his conduct and his truthfulness of his responses on the Jury Questionnaire. See Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330. It should go without saying that Juror 50 needs to know whether or not the question(s) related to prior sexual abuse were answered by him correctly on his Jury Questionnaire to help determine what an appropriate inquiry would entail, so that the same would also Juror 50’s privacy rights and legitimate interests related to these matters.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008988",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Judge Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "January 5, 2022",
+      "Jan. 5, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 609",
+      "20-CR-330",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008988"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 9 of 13."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008989.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 13\n\n2. The Court has the authority to release the Jury Questionnaire under seal.\n\nJuror 50's Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his testimony during voir dire are currently held under seal, by this Court's authority.\n\nIn United States v. King, the appellate court made clear that it may be permissible to release jury questionnaires from a trial, if the juror names were redacted to maintain juror anonymity. United States v. King, 140 F3d 76, 83 (2d Cir 1998). Support for such a release was based on the holding that limitations to access of voir dire materials are only permissible when there is a demonstrated need, and the limitations are narrowly drawn and supported by findings. Id., at 82-83.\n\nThe decision to release jury questionnaires and voir dire transcripts is subject to a balancing test. United States v Bruno, 700 F Supp 2d 175, 182-83 (NDNY 2010). The Court must use its discretion to \"make a sensitive appraisal of the climate surrounding a trial and a prediction as to the potential security or publicity problems that may arise\" before, during, and after the proceedings. United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 702 (D.C.Cir.1995); see also United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 907, 914–15 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that the trial court may refuse to allow the media to inspect documents that are not a matter of public record and that such refusal does not operate as a prior restraint). The conclusion of the trial does not remove the jurors' interest in privacy and protection from harassment. See United States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1210–12 (5th Cir.1977); see also United States v. Harrelson, 713 F.2d 1114, 1118 (5th Cir.1983) (finding that \"[c]ommon sense tells us that a juror who has once indicated a desire to be let alone and to put the matter of his jury service behind him by declining to be interviewed regarding it is unlikely to change his mind; and if he does, he is always free to initiate an interview\").\n\n10\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008989",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. The Court has the authority to release the Jury Questionnaire under seal.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror 50's Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his testimony during voir dire are currently held under seal, by this Court's authority.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In United States v. King, the appellate court made clear that it may be permissible to release jury questionnaires from a trial, if the juror names were redacted to maintain juror anonymity. United States v. King, 140 F3d 76, 83 (2d Cir 1998). Support for such a release was based on the holding that limitations to access of voir dire materials are only permissible when there is a demonstrated need, and the limitations are narrowly drawn and supported by findings. Id., at 82-83.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The decision to release jury questionnaires and voir dire transcripts is subject to a balancing test. United States v Bruno, 700 F Supp 2d 175, 182-83 (NDNY 2010). The Court must use its discretion to \"make a sensitive appraisal of the climate surrounding a trial and a prediction as to the potential security or publicity problems that may arise\" before, during, and after the proceedings. United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 702 (D.C.Cir.1995); see also United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 907, 914–15 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that the trial court may refuse to allow the media to inspect documents that are not a matter of public record and that such refusal does not operate as a prior restraint). The conclusion of the trial does not remove the jurors' interest in privacy and protection from harassment. See United States v. Gurney, 558 F.2d 1202, 1210–12 (5th Cir.1977); see also United States v. Harrelson, 713 F.2d 1114, 1118 (5th Cir.1983) (finding that \"[c]ommon sense tells us that a juror who has once indicated a desire to be let alone and to put the matter of his jury service behind him by declining to be interviewed regarding it is unlikely to change his mind; and if he does, he is always free to initiate an interview\").",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008989",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1998",
+      "2010",
+      "1995",
+      "2001",
+      "1977",
+      "1983"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "609",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008989"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the release of jury questionnaires and voir dire transcripts. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is page 10 of 13."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008990.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "11",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 13\n\n3. The instance matter presents a compelling reason to release the Jury Questionnaire to Counsel, under seal.\nTo the extent Juror 50's privacy interest would normally prevent disclosure, those factors do not apply to the release of the Jury Questionnaire and the voir dire transcript, under seal, to his own attorney. Such a release will allow Juror 50 to comply with Judge Nathan's Order from January 05, 2022. Additionally, since the Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript will remain under seal, with the limited expectations requested herein, this Court need not be concerned about the risks that may be posed by full disclosure of the same, and therefore does not need to consider the risks of widespread disclosure in deciding the instant motion.\nWhile the court was right to seal the Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript from the public given the circumstances of the trial, the circumstances have changes since that time. Now that the Jury Questionnaire of Juror 50 specifically is at issue, Juror 50's attorney should be granted access to the document under seal. The privacy concerns that favor limiting access to the Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript by others do not apply to Juror 50 himself, given his unique involvement and personal role in the inquiry directed by the order of this Court. As such, the balancing of the relevant factors strongly supports granting Juror 50 access to his own Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his voir dire testimony, under seal, especially in light of the unique facts and circumstance presented by this matter.\nIV. CONCLUSION\nFor the above stated reasons, Juror 50 respectfully requests the Court release a copy of the Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of Juror 50's voir dire testimony to the Prosecution, defense counsel, and the attorney for Juror 50, under seal, and that the Court grant his motion to intervene.\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00008990",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. The instance matter presents a compelling reason to release the Jury Questionnaire to Counsel, under seal.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "To the extent Juror 50's privacy interest would normally prevent disclosure, those factors do not apply to the release of the Jury Questionnaire and the voir dire transcript, under seal, to his own attorney. Such a release will allow Juror 50 to comply with Judge Nathan's Order from January 05, 2022. Additionally, since the Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript will remain under seal, with the limited expectations requested herein, this Court need not be concerned about the risks that may be posed by full disclosure of the same, and therefore does not need to consider the risks of widespread disclosure in deciding the instant motion.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "While the court was right to seal the Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript from the public given the circumstances of the trial, the circumstances have changes since that time. Now that the Jury Questionnaire of Juror 50 specifically is at issue, Juror 50's attorney should be granted access to the document under seal. The privacy concerns that favor limiting access to the Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript by others do not apply to Juror 50 himself, given his unique involvement and personal role in the inquiry directed by the order of this Court. As such, the balancing of the relevant factors strongly supports granting Juror 50 access to his own Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his voir dire testimony, under seal, especially in light of the unique facts and circumstance presented by this matter.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "IV. CONCLUSION",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For the above stated reasons, Juror 50 respectfully requests the Court release a copy of the Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of Juror 50's voir dire testimony to the Prosecution, defense counsel, and the attorney for Juror 50, under seal, and that the Court grant his motion to intervene.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008990",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Judge Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Prosecution",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 05, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 609",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008990"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008991.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "12",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 13\nDated: New York, New York January 10, 2022\nRespectfully Submitted,\n/S/\nTodd Spodek, Esq.\nSpodek Law Group P.C.\n85 Broad Street, 17th Floor\nNew York, NY 10004\nTel: (212) 300-5196\nFax: (212) 300-6371\nts@spodeklawgroup.com\nAttorney for Proposed Intervenor\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00008991",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: New York, New York January 10, 2022",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully Submitted,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "/S/",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Todd Spodek, Esq.\nSpodek Law Group P.C.\n85 Broad Street, 17th Floor\nNew York, NY 10004\nTel: (212) 300-5196\nFax: (212) 300-6371\nts@spodeklawgroup.com\nAttorney for Proposed Intervenor",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008991",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Todd Spodek"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Spodek Law Group P.C."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 10, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "609",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008991"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature block and contact information for the attorney."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008992.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "13",
+    "document_number": "609",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 10th day of January, 2022, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be electronically served upon all parties receiving CM/ECF notices in this case. /S/ Todd A. Spodek, Esq. COUNSEL FOR PROPOSED INTERVENOR 13 DOJ-OGR-00008992",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I certify that on this 10th day of January, 2022, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be electronically served upon all parties receiving CM/ECF notices in this case.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "/S/",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Todd A. Spodek, Esq. COUNSEL FOR PROPOSED INTERVENOR",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008992",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Todd A. Spodek"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 10, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "609",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008992"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a standard Certificate of Service form used in legal proceedings, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008993.json

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 3",
+    "document_number": "610",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 3\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislain Maxwell,\nDefendant.\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nOn January 19, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis that Juror 50 \"falsely answered a material question during voir dire and . . . that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause.\" Maxwell Br., Jan. 19, 2022, at 48. The Defendant contends that the current paper record sufficiently supports her motion and should be granted without a hearing.\nIn the alternative, she requests that a hearing be conducted. Id. She also argues that if a hearing is ordered, a broader hearing is required based on a news article that suggests a second juror was allegedly a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 48-49.\nIn an Opinion & Order filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's motion for a new trial on the current record. As explained in the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order, Defendant's motion on the current record relies extensively on statements made by Juror 50 regarding what occurred during jury deliberations that the Court is prohibited from considering under Federal Rule of Evidence 606. With regard to Juror 50's statements that do not pertain to jury deliberations, in order to resolve the motion on this record, the Court would have to accept unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available on the current record.\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00008993",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislain Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _____ DATE FILED: 2/24/22",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 19, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the basis that Juror 50 \"falsely answered a material question during voir dire and . . . that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause.\" Maxwell Br., Jan. 19, 2022, at 48. The Defendant contends that the current paper record sufficiently supports her motion and should be granted without a hearing.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In the alternative, she requests that a hearing be conducted. Id. She also argues that if a hearing is ordered, a broader hearing is required based on a news article that suggests a second juror was allegedly a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 48-49.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In an Opinion & Order filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's motion for a new trial on the current record. As explained in the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order, Defendant's motion on the current record relies extensively on statements made by Juror 50 regarding what occurred during jury deliberations that the Court is prohibited from considering under Federal Rule of Evidence 606. With regard to Juror 50's statements that do not pertain to jury deliberations, in order to resolve the motion on this record, the Court would have to accept unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available on the current record.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008993",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislain Maxwell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Juror 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States of America"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 19, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 610",
+      "20-CR-330 (AJN)"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is a printed document with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The content is a legal ruling on a motion for a new trial."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008994.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "610",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 3\n\nAccordingly, for the reasons fully explained in the Opinion & Order, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. Because of the important interest in the finality of judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection. Juror 50's post-trial statements are \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety\"—namely, a false statement during jury selection—has occurred. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018). To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored.\n\nIn contrast, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to the conduct of any other juror. The Court DENIES the request to conduct a hearing with respect to the other jurors. The Court also DENIES the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery.\n\nThe Court therefore ORDERS that a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Court further ORDERS that Juror 50's questionnaire be unsealed, for the reasons explained in the Opinion & Order. The Court will email counsel for Juror 50 a copy of his questionnaire and a copy of this Order. As also explained in the Opinion & Order, the\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008994",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Accordingly, for the reasons fully explained in the Opinion & Order, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. Because of the important interest in the finality of judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection. Juror 50's post-trial statements are \"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety\"—namely, a false statement during jury selection—has occurred. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018). To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In contrast, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to the conduct of any other juror. The Court DENIES the request to conduct a hearing with respect to the other jurors. The Court also DENIES the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court therefore ORDERS that a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Court further ORDERS that Juror 50's questionnaire be unsealed, for the reasons explained in the Opinion & Order. The Court will email counsel for Juror 50 a copy of his questionnaire and a copy of this Order. As also explained in the Opinion & Order, the",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008994",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 610",
+      "899 F.3d 123",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008994"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damages."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008995.json

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "610",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 3\n\nCourt will conduct the questioning at the public hearing with input from counsel for the Defendant and the Government. The parties may submit by email proposed questions in accordance with the Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022.\n\nThe hearing will take place on March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS Juror 50 to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York at that date and time to give testimony under oath in response to the Court's questions. The Court will ensure public access and will provide information on public access as soon as it is available.\n\nThe Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties. By noon on February 25, 2022, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Opinion & Order, conforming any requests to this Court's prior order, Dkt. No. 596, and justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: February 24, 2022\nNew York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00008995",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 610 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Court will conduct the questioning at the public hearing with input from counsel for the Defendant and the Government. The parties may submit by email proposed questions in accordance with the Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The hearing will take place on March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS Juror 50 to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York at that date and time to give testimony under oath in response to the Court's questions. The Court will ensure public access and will provide information on public access as soon as it is available.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties. By noon on February 25, 2022, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Opinion & Order, conforming any requests to this Court's prior order, Dkt. No. 596, and justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: February 24, 2022\nNew York, New York",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "signature"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008995",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "March 1, 2022",
+      "March 8, 2022",
+      "February 25, 2022",
+      "February 24, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 610",
+      "Dkt. No. 596",
+      "435 F.3d 110",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008995"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order with a signature from Judge Alison J. Nathan. It appears to be a formal legal document with specific instructions and dates related to a court case."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008996.json

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "611",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 611 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 1 U.S Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 February 24, 2022 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's February 24, 2022 Order (Dkt. No. 610), which directed the parties to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal. The Government does not seek any redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal. Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF) DOJ-OGR-00008996",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 611 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S Department of Justice",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States Attorney Southern District of New York",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "February 24, 2022",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY ECF",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the Court's February 24, 2022 Order (Dkt. No. 610), which directed the parties to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal. The Government does not seek any redactions to the Court's February 24, 2022 Opinion and Order filed under temporary seal.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Cc: Defense Counsel (By ECF)",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008996",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Damian Williams",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "February 24, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "611",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "610",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008996"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from the United States Attorney's Office to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is dated February 24, 2022, and is signed by Damian Williams, United States Attorney, and several Assistant United States Attorneys. The document is stamped with a DOJ reference number."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008997.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "January 13, 2022",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 5\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nJanuary 13, 2022\nVIA EMAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,\nMs. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access.\nJuror 50 first seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8.\nAu contraire, \"the long line of precedent hold[s] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror 50 to intervene in this\nDOJ-OGR-00008997",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "January 13, 2022\nVIA EMAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's forthcoming motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror 50 first seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Au contraire, \"the long line of precedent hold[s] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror 50 to intervene in this",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008997",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2012"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008997"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing a legal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and contains legal terminology and references to specific court documents."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008998.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 2\nmatter. The request is not to intervene by a journalist for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent.\nUnited States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).\nThe second request by Juror 50 is for discovery. Ms. Maxwell's position, to be more fully articulated in her forthcoming substantive response to this Motion, is that this request should be denied. For purposes of the issue concerning maintaining the seal on public access, discovery requests are not \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").\nDOJ-OGR-00008998",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "matter. The request is not to intervene by a journalist for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent.\nUnited States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The second request by Juror 50 is for discovery. Ms. Maxwell's position, to be more fully articulated in her forthcoming substantive response to this Motion, is that this request should be denied. For purposes of the issue concerning maintaining the seal on public access, discovery requests are not \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008998",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States",
+      "SEC"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "E.D. Wis",
+      "S.D.N.Y"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2008",
+      "1979",
+      "1973",
+      "2013",
+      "2001"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008998"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of a 5-page document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008999.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 3\n\nThe fact that Juror 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\"\nUnited States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.\") Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is 'redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.' Because such rejected or stricken material is not 'relevant to the performance of the judicial function' it would not be considered a 'judicial document' and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\")\n\nThe Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008999",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The fact that Juror 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\"\nUnited States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document.\") Moreover, Ms. Maxwell anticipates moving to strike the pleadings and, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is 'redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.' Because such rejected or stricken material is not 'relevant to the performance of the judicial function' it would not be considered a 'judicial document' and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\")",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008999",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Court of Appeals",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1995",
+      "2019",
+      "2006"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00008999"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Juror 50 and Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the concept of 'judicial documents' and the right of public access to court documents. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009000.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 4\nThere exists no compelling reason to release Juror 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings.\nThe pleadings filed by Juror 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror 50's pleadings merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The pleadings would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.\nJuror 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses, including notably the other jurors. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromise\" the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).\nDOJ-OGR-00009000",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "There exists no compelling reason to release Juror 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The pleadings filed by Juror 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror 50's pleadings merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The pleadings would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses, including notably the other jurors. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromise\" the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009000",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Juror 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "N.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "June 4, 2008",
+      "June 5, 2008",
+      "July 14, 2008"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "No. 08-M-208 (DRH)"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 4 of a 5-page document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009001.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "612",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 5\ns/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via Email)\nDOJ-OGR-00009001",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 612 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJanuary 13, 2022\nPage 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: Counsel of record (via Email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009001",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 13, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 612",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009001"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009002.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "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 1 of 66\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n-------------------------------------------------------------X\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nv.\n\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.\n-------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL\n\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\n\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009002",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n-------------------------------------------------------------X\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nv.\n\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.\n-------------------------------------------------------------X",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009002",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY",
+      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009002"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009003.json

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Table of Contents",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 66\n\nTable of Contents\n\nTable of Contents.......................................................................................................................ii\nTable of Authorities....................................................................................................................iv\nIntroduction ...............................................................................................................................1\nFactual Background....................................................................................................................2\nI. Jury Selection........................................................................................................................2\nA. The jury questionnaire....................................................................................................2\nB. Juror No. 50's questionnaire...........................................................................................5\nC. Juror No. 50's voir dire...................................................................................................6\nD. The final composition of the jury....................................................................................9\nII. Juror No. 50's admissions that he wasn't truthful with the Court..........................................11\nA. Juror No. 50's statements to the media..........................................................................12\n1. The interview with the Independent.........................................................................12\n2. The interview with the Daily Mail............................................................................13\n3. The interview with Reuters......................................................................................14\n4. The partial video of the interview with the Daily Mail.............................................14\nB. Juror No. 50's social media activity...............................................................................15\nC. A second juror admits to disclosing during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault...........................................................................................................................21\nApplicable Law.........................................................................................................................21\nI. Juror No. 50's misconduct deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury................................................................................................................21\nA. 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....................................................................21\nii\nDOJ-OGR-00009003",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Table of Contents",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................ii\nTable of Authorities....................................................................................................................iv\nIntroduction ...............................................................................................................................1\nFactual Background....................................................................................................................2\nI. Jury Selection........................................................................................................................2\nA. The jury questionnaire....................................................................................................2\nB. Juror No. 50's questionnaire...........................................................................................5\nC. Juror No. 50's voir dire...................................................................................................6\nD. The final composition of the jury....................................................................................9\nII. Juror No. 50's admissions that he wasn't truthful with the Court..........................................11\nA. Juror No. 50's statements to the media..........................................................................12\n1. The interview with the Independent.........................................................................12\n2. The interview with the Daily Mail............................................................................13\n3. The interview with Reuters......................................................................................14\n4. The partial video of the interview with the Daily Mail.............................................14\nB. Juror No. 50's social media activity...............................................................................15\nC. A second juror admits to disclosing during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault...........................................................................................................................21\nApplicable Law.........................................................................................................................21\nI. Juror No. 50's misconduct deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury................................................................................................................21\nA. 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....................................................................21",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ii",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009003",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Independent",
+      "Daily Mail",
+      "Reuters",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009003"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a table of contents for a legal filing. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009004.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "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 3 of 66\nB. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. ....................... 23\nArgument ....................................................... 28\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. ............................ 28\nA. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48. ....................... 28\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. ........ 29\n1. Implied bias. ............................................ 30\n2. Inferable bias. ............................................ 37\n3. Actual bias. ............................................... 38\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false. ........ 39\nD. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false. ...... 43\nE. The scope of any evidentiary hearing. ............................. 48\n1. Pre-hearing discovery. ....................................... 48\n2. The hearing itself. .......................................... 49\nII. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene. ............................... 51\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing. ...................................... 51\nB. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation. ................................................ 52\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal. ... 53\nConclusion .......................................................... 56\nCertificate of Service .................................................. 59\niii\nDOJ-OGR-00009004",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. ....................... 23\nArgument ....................................................... 28\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. ............................ 28\nA. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48. ....................... 28\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. ........ 29\n1. Implied bias. ............................................ 30\n2. Inferable bias. ............................................ 37\n3. Actual bias. ............................................... 38\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false. ........ 39\nD. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false. ...... 43\nE. The scope of any evidentiary hearing. ............................. 48\n1. Pre-hearing discovery. ....................................... 48\n2. The hearing itself. .......................................... 49\nII. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene. ............................... 51\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing. ...................................... 51\nB. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation. ................................................ 52\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal. ... 53\nConclusion .......................................................... 56\nCertificate of Service .................................................. 59",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "iii",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009004",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009004"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with a focus on Juror No. 50 and their answers during voir dire. The document is well-structured and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009005.json

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Table of Authorities",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 66\n\nTable of Authorities\n\nCases\n\nAdams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980) ............................................................28\nArizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) ....................................................22\nBrown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................54\nBurton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991)...........................................29, 30\nClark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933).........................................................27\nCunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022)...............................................................50\nDavis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) .......................................................52\nDyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1998) ..................................................27, 30\nGonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1996).............................................36\nHunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1992) ................................................29\nIn re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1997)..........................................................52\nIn re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008) .......................................................55\nJohn Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989)....................................52\nLinda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973)....................................................51\nLugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) .......................54\nMazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)...............................................................53\n\niv\nDOJ-OGR-00009005",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Table of Authorities",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Cases",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980) ............................................................28\nArizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) ....................................................22\nBrown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019)...................................................54\nBurton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991)...........................................29, 30\nClark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933).........................................................27\nCunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022)...............................................................50\nDavis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) .......................................................52\nDyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir.1998) ..................................................27, 30\nGonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978 (10th Cir. 1996).............................................36\nHunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1992) ................................................29\nIn re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1997)..........................................................52\nIn re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008) .......................................................55\nJohn Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (1989)....................................52\nLinda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973)....................................................51\nLugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) .......................54\nMazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010)...............................................................53",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "iv",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009005",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Adams",
+      "Texas",
+      "Fulminante",
+      "Arizona",
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Brown",
+      "Johnson",
+      "Burton",
+      "Clark",
+      "Cunningham",
+      "Shoop",
+      "Davis",
+      "Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc.",
+      "Dyer",
+      "Calderon",
+      "Gonzales",
+      "Thomas",
+      "Hunley",
+      "Godinez",
+      "Gucci",
+      "John Doe Agency",
+      "John Doe Corp.",
+      "Linda R.S.",
+      "Richard D.",
+      "Lugosch",
+      "Pyramid Co. of Onondaga",
+      "Mazzeo",
+      "Gibbons"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S.",
+      "F.3d",
+      "Cir.",
+      "U.S. Supreme Court",
+      "S.D. Miss.",
+      "N.D.N.Y.",
+      "D. Nev."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Texas",
+      "Arizona",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "1980",
+      "1991",
+      "2019",
+      "1991",
+      "1933",
+      "2022",
+      "2012",
+      "1998",
+      "1996",
+      "1992",
+      "1997",
+      "2008",
+      "1989",
+      "1973",
+      "2006",
+      "2010"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "448 U.S. 38",
+      "499 U.S. 279",
+      "929 F.3d 41",
+      "948 F.2d 1150",
+      "289 U.S. 1",
+      "__ F.4th __",
+      "2022 WL 92594",
+      "3:11CV236-TSL-MTP",
+      "2012 WL 112202",
+      "151 F.3d 970",
+      "99 F.3d 978",
+      "975 F.2d 316",
+      "126 F.3d 380",
+      "08-M-208 (DRH)",
+      "2008 WL 5667021",
+      "493 U.S. 146",
+      "410 U.S. 614",
+      "435 F.3d 110",
+      "2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA",
+      "2010 WL 3910072"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a table of authorities from a legal case. It appears to be a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The text is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009006.json

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "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 5 of 66\nMcDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984)...........passim\nMetzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Nev. 1988)...............................................53\nMurphy v. Adm'r E. Jersey State Prison, No. 18-2825, 2021 WL 2822179\n(3d Cir. July 7, 2021)......................................................................................46\nMurphy v. Nogam, No. CV 14-4268 (KM), 2018 WL 278735 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2018) ......46\nNeder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) ....................................................................28\nPena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) ........................................................50\nRosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981)....................................................38, 45\nRussell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021)..............................................................47\nSEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir.2001) ........................................................53\nSkaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F.3d 511 (10th Cir. 1998)...........................................29, 35\nSmith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982)............................................................................21, 25\nState v. Ashfar, 196 A.3d 93 (N.H. 2018) .......................................................................33, 41\nState v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012 (App. Div. 1994)................45, 46\nState v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976) ...............................................46\nState v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983)....................................................46\nUnited States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC,\n2011 WL 1045095 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011)...............................................................52\nUnited States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995).........................................................53\nUnited States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) ..............................................................51\nUnited States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1979) ...................................................22, 55\nv\nDOJ-OGR-00009006",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984)...........passim\nMetzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Nev. 1988)...............................................53\nMurphy v. Adm'r E. Jersey State Prison, No. 18-2825, 2021 WL 2822179\n(3d Cir. July 7, 2021)......................................................................................46\nMurphy v. Nogam, No. CV 14-4268 (KM), 2018 WL 278735 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2018) ......46\nNeder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) ....................................................................28\nPena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) ........................................................50\nRosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (1981)....................................................38, 45\nRussell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021)..............................................................47\nSEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir.2001) ........................................................53\nSkaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F.3d 511 (10th Cir. 1998)...........................................29, 35\nSmith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982)............................................................................21, 25\nState v. Ashfar, 196 A.3d 93 (N.H. 2018) .......................................................................33, 41\nState v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012 (App. Div. 1994)................45, 46\nState v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976) ...............................................46\nState v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983)....................................................46\nUnited States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC,\n2011 WL 1045095 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011)...............................................................52\nUnited States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995).........................................................53\nUnited States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) ..............................................................51\nUnited States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1979) ...................................................22, 55",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "v",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009006",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Greenwood",
+      "Hussman",
+      "Murphy",
+      "Nogam",
+      "Neder",
+      "Pena-Rodriguez",
+      "Rosales-Lopez",
+      "Russell",
+      "Skaggs",
+      "Phillips",
+      "Ashfar",
+      "Scher",
+      "Thompson",
+      "Williams",
+      "Amodeo",
+      "Aref",
+      "Barnes"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.",
+      "SEC",
+      "Otis Elevator Co.",
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Nevada",
+      "New Jersey",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New Hampshire"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "1984",
+      "1988",
+      "2021",
+      "2018",
+      "1999",
+      "2017",
+      "1981",
+      "2021",
+      "2001",
+      "1998",
+      "1982",
+      "2018",
+      "1994",
+      "1976",
+      "1983",
+      "2011",
+      "1995",
+      "2008",
+      "1979"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "18-2825",
+      "CV 14-4268",
+      "98 CIV. 2279 DLC"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of case references. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009007.json

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "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 6 of 66\nUnited States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927 (E.D. Wis. 2013)....................................................51\nUnited States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1989) ...............................................................27\nUnited States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)................................................passim\nUnited States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1979).................................................................30\nUnited States v. French, 904 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2018)...................................................................47\nUnited States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2002) ......................................................................36\nUnited States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980 (2d Cir. 1968)................................................................29, 38\nUnited States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65(2d Cir. 1993).................................................................23, 26\nUnited States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) .................................................................22\nUnited States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2002)....................................................................21\nUnited States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015)........................................................................21\nUnited States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1979) .................................................................51\nUnited States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Mass. 2011)...................................................passim\nUnited States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).........................................................53\nUnited States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006)................................................................passim\nUnited States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2012)......................................................................51\nUnited States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) ................................................................28, 35\nUnited States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1997) ...................................................................passim\nUnited States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936)...............................................................................29, 37\nWainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ....................................................................................28, 43\nWarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)..............................................................................................52\nWright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957)..........................................................................................46\nvi\nDOJ-OGR-00009007",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927 (E.D. Wis. 2013)....................................................51\nUnited States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1989) ...............................................................27\nUnited States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)................................................passim\nUnited States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1979).................................................................30\nUnited States v. French, 904 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2018)...................................................................47\nUnited States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2002) ......................................................................36\nUnited States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980 (2d Cir. 1968)................................................................29, 38\nUnited States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65(2d Cir. 1993).................................................................23, 26\nUnited States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000) .................................................................22\nUnited States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2002)....................................................................21\nUnited States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015)........................................................................21\nUnited States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1979) .................................................................51\nUnited States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Mass. 2011)...................................................passim\nUnited States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).........................................................53\nUnited States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006)................................................................passim\nUnited States v. Stoerr, 695 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2012)......................................................................51\nUnited States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) ................................................................28, 35\nUnited States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1997) ...................................................................passim\nUnited States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936)...............................................................................29, 37\nWainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ....................................................................................28, 43\nWarth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)..............................................................................................52\nWright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957)..........................................................................................46",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "vi",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009007",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Collins",
+      "Colombo",
+      "Daugerdas",
+      "Eubanks",
+      "French",
+      "Greer",
+      "Haynes",
+      "Langford",
+      "Martinez-Salazar",
+      "Nelson",
+      "Parse",
+      "Sampson",
+      "Smith",
+      "Stewart",
+      "Stoerr",
+      "Thomas",
+      "Torres",
+      "Wood",
+      "Witt",
+      "Seldin",
+      "Bernstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States",
+      "RMI Co."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Wisconsin",
+      "New York",
+      "Massachusetts",
+      "New Jersey"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "2013",
+      "1989",
+      "2012",
+      "1979",
+      "2018",
+      "2002",
+      "1968",
+      "1993",
+      "2000",
+      "2002",
+      "2015",
+      "1979",
+      "2011",
+      "2013",
+      "2006",
+      "2012",
+      "1997",
+      "1997",
+      "1936",
+      "1985",
+      "1975",
+      "1957",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009007"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of case references. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is in good condition with clear text."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009008.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "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 7 of 66\n\nConstitutional Provisions\n\nU.S. Amend. VI ....................................................... 21, 22\n\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 12.................................................... 53, 54\nFed. R. Crim. P. 24 .................................................... 45\nFed. R. Crim. P. 33 .................................................... 1, 21\nFed. R. Evid. 606(b) .................................................... 49, 50\n\nvii\nDOJ-OGR-00009008",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Constitutional Provisions",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S. Amend. VI ....................................................... 21, 22",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Rules",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.................................................... 53, 54\nFed. R. Crim. P. 24 .................................................... 45\nFed. R. Crim. P. 33 .................................................... 1, 21\nFed. R. Evid. 606(b) .................................................... 49, 50",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "vii",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009008",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009008"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with references to various legal rules and provisions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and clear."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009009.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "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 8 of 66\n\nGhislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial.\n\nIntroduction\n\nJuror No. 50 says he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child.\nWhen he told his fellow jurors of this abuse during deliberations, \"[t]he room went dead silent.\" Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he drew on his personal experience as a victim to persuade fellow jurors to believe Ms. Maxwell's accusers, despite the inconsistencies and holes in their stories, even though they delayed disclosing their allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and in spite of expert testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Loftus casting significant doubt on the reliability of their claimed memories.\nThis was unfair and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and it all would have been avoided if Juror No. 50 had told the truth during voir dire. But he didn't. To the contrary, Juror No. 50 repeatedly and unequivocally denied having been the victim of sexual abuse, and he denied having any experience that would affect his ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror. Had Juror No. 50 told the truth, he would have been challenged, and excluded, for cause.\nThe Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees trial by jury. Fundamental to that guarantee is the promise that the jury will be comprised of twelve dispassionate individuals who will fairly and impartially decide, based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not on their personal predilections and biases, whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Voir dire plays an essential\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009009",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Introduction",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 says he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child. When he told his fellow jurors of this abuse during deliberations, \"[t]he room went dead silent.\" Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he drew on his personal experience as a victim to persuade fellow jurors to believe Ms. Maxwell's accusers, despite the inconsistencies and holes in their stories, even though they delayed disclosing their allegations against Ms. Maxwell, and in spite of expert testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Loftus casting significant doubt on the reliability of their claimed memories.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This was unfair and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and it all would have been avoided if Juror No. 50 had told the truth during voir dire. But he didn't. To the contrary, Juror No. 50 repeatedly and unequivocally denied having been the victim of sexual abuse, and he denied having any experience that would affect his ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror. Had Juror No. 50 told the truth, he would have been challenged, and excluded, for cause.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees trial by jury. Fundamental to that guarantee is the promise that the jury will be comprised of twelve dispassionate individuals who will fairly and impartially decide, based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not on their personal predilections and biases, whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Voir dire plays an essential",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009009",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Dr. Elizabeth Loftus",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009009"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009010.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "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 9 of 66\n\nrole in this process, and it depends on potential jurors to truthfully answer material questions put to them by the Court and the parties.\n\nThat did not happen here. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully respond to perhaps the most important question put to potential jurors about their personal experiences - a question that pertained directly to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell: Whether they had been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Juror No. 50's false answer undermined voir dire, resulted in a jury that was not fair and impartial, and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to trial by jury.\n\nThis Court should vacate the judgment and order a new trial.\n\nFactual Background\n\nI. Jury Selection\n\nA. The jury questionnaire\n\nThis Court summoned about seven hundred potential jurors, providing each of them with a 22-page questionnaire containing 50 questions. Groups of 100 or more jurors were gathered in the courthouse in morning and afternoon sessions over the course of three days. They were given as much time as needed to complete the questionnaires. Potential jurors signed the questionnaires and swore to the accuracy of their responses under penalty of perjury.\n\nThe questionnaire's purpose was to provide the parties with information about potential jurors and to discern whether any potential juror could not be fair and impartial.\n\nThe Court assured the parties that any affirmative answers to questions would be the subject of follow up questioning during the oral voir dire.\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009010",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "role in this process, and it depends on potential jurors to truthfully answer material questions put to them by the Court and the parties.\n\nThat did not happen here. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully respond to perhaps the most important question put to potential jurors about their personal experiences - a question that pertained directly to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell: Whether they had been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Juror No. 50's false answer undermined voir dire, resulted in a jury that was not fair and impartial, and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to trial by jury.\n\nThis Court should vacate the judgment and order a new trial.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Factual Background",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. Jury Selection\n\nA. The jury questionnaire\n\nThis Court summoned about seven hundred potential jurors, providing each of them with a 22-page questionnaire containing 50 questions. Groups of 100 or more jurors were gathered in the courthouse in morning and afternoon sessions over the course of three days. They were given as much time as needed to complete the questionnaires. Potential jurors signed the questionnaires and swore to the accuracy of their responses under penalty of perjury.\n\nThe questionnaire's purpose was to provide the parties with information about potential jurors and to discern whether any potential juror could not be fair and impartial.\n\nThe Court assured the parties that any affirmative answers to questions would be the subject of follow up questioning during the oral voir dire.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009010",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "court house"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009010"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the jury selection process and a potential issue with Juror No. 50's responses. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009011.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "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 10 of 66\n\nThe questionnaire began with a summary of the indictment and the allegations against Ms. Maxwell, including allegations of sexual trafficking, enticement, and transportation.\n\nGiven the accusations and the sensitivity of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment, and the powerful effects such assault, abuse, and harassment can have, the questionnaire included several questions designed to elicit whether a potential juror had ever been abused, assaulted, or harassed, and how that might affect their ability to be an unbiased fact finder.\n\nFor example, Question No. 13 asked potential jurors if they could decide the case purely the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on any biases, sympathies, or prejudices.\n\nQuestion 25 asked potential jurors if they were ever a victim of a crime and, if so, whether that experience would prevent them from being fair and impartial.\n\nQuestions 42-50 asked jurors about their feelings and experiences with the types of alleged conduct at issue in the case, including sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.\n\nQuestion 42 asked whether the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell \"might make it difficult\" for potential jurors to be fair and impartial. Question 43 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws concerning the age of consent and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 44 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 47\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00009011",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The questionnaire began with a summary of the indictment and the allegations against Ms. Maxwell, including allegations of sexual trafficking, enticement, and transportation.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Given the accusations and the sensitivity of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment, and the powerful effects such assault, abuse, and harassment can have, the questionnaire included several questions designed to elicit whether a potential juror had ever been abused, assaulted, or harassed, and how that might affect their ability to be an unbiased fact finder.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For example, Question No. 13 asked potential jurors if they could decide the case purely the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on any biases, sympathies, or prejudices.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Question 25 asked potential jurors if they were ever a victim of a crime and, if so, whether that experience would prevent them from being fair and impartial.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Questions 42-50 asked jurors about their feelings and experiences with the types of alleged conduct at issue in the case, including sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Question 42 asked whether the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell \"might make it difficult\" for potential jurors to be fair and impartial. Question 43 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws concerning the age of consent and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 44 asked potential jurors if they had views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors and if those views would affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Question 47",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009011",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009011"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell, with a focus on the questionnaire used for potential jurors. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009012.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "11",
+    "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 11 of 66\n\nasked potential jurors if they would have any difficulty assessing the credibility of\nalleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as they would assess the credibility of any\nother witness.\n\nPrior to finalizing the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell proposed specific questions to\nidentify potential jurors who had been victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual\nharassment. The defense proposed to ask potential jurors: (1) \"Whether reported or not,\nhave you, any family member or anyone close to you, including a child/minor, ever been\nthe victim of any form of sexual abuse? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault\nor other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor,\nteacher, or family member;\" and (2) \"Whether reported or not, have you, or anyone close\nto you, including a child/minor, ever felt in danger of being sexually assaulted by another\nperson, including a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member?\" Doc.\n367, p 21. The government objected to Ms. Maxwell's proposed questions. Id. The Court\npartially agreed with the prosecution, asking a single question about whether potential\njurors had been actual victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment.\n\nSpecifically, Question 48 asked:\n\nHave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual\nharassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or\nattempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a\nstranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)\n\nThe questionnaire offered three answers: \"Yes (self),\" \"Yes (friend or family member),\"\nand \"No.\"\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00009012",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "asked potential jurors if they would have any difficulty assessing the credibility of\nalleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as they would assess the credibility of any\nother witness.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Prior to finalizing the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell proposed specific questions to\nidentify potential jurors who had been victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual\nharassment. The defense proposed to ask potential jurors: (1) \"Whether reported or not,\nhave you, any family member or anyone close to you, including a child/minor, ever been\nthe victim of any form of sexual abuse? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault\nor other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor,\nteacher, or family member;\" and (2) \"Whether reported or not, have you, or anyone close\nto you, including a child/minor, ever felt in danger of being sexually assaulted by another\nperson, including a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member?\" Doc.\n367, p 21. The government objected to Ms. Maxwell's proposed questions. Id. The Court\npartially agreed with the prosecution, asking a single question about whether potential\njurors had been actual victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Specifically, Question 48 asked:\n\nHave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual\nharassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or\nattempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a\nstranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)\n\nThe questionnaire offered three answers: \"Yes (self),\" \"Yes (friend or family member),\"\nand \"No.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009012",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "government",
+      "prosecution",
+      "defense"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Doc. 367",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009012"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sexual assault case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009013.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "12",
+    "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 12 of 66\n\nIf a potential juror selected either \"yes\" option, the questionnaire asked individuals to explain their answer in writing, to state whether having been a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment would affect their ability to serve fairly and impartially, and if so, to explain why.\n\nFinally, Question 50 asked potential jurors if there was any experience that they had that might affect their ability to serve fairly and impartial as a juror.\n\nSix-hundred and ninety-four individuals answered the questionnaire.\n\nB. Juror No. 50's questionnaire\n\nJuror No. 50's questionnaire is attached as EXHIBIT 1. Under the penalty of perjury, Juror. No. 50 answered these questions as follows:\n\n- Question 13: \"Yes,\" Juror No. 50 could decide the case solely based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on bias, sympathy, or prejudice.\n- Question 25: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 had never been the victim of a crime.\n- Question 42: \"No,\" there was nothing about the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell that \"might make it difficult\" for Juror No. 50 to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 43: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about laws concerning the age of consent that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 44: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009013",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "If a potential juror selected either \"yes\" option, the questionnaire asked individuals to explain their answer in writing, to state whether having been a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment would affect their ability to serve fairly and impartially, and if so, to explain why.\n\nFinally, Question 50 asked potential jurors if there was any experience that they had that might affect their ability to serve fairly and impartial as a juror.\n\nSix-hundred and ninety-four individuals answered the questionnaire.\n\nB. Juror No. 50's questionnaire\n\nJuror No. 50's questionnaire is attached as EXHIBIT 1. Under the penalty of perjury, Juror. No. 50 answered these questions as follows:\n\n- Question 13: \"Yes,\" Juror No. 50 could decide the case solely based on the evidence or lack of evidence and not based on bias, sympathy, or prejudice.\n- Question 25: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 had never been the victim of a crime.\n- Question 42: \"No,\" there was nothing about the nature of the allegations against Ms. Maxwell that \"might make it difficult\" for Juror No. 50 to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 43: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about laws concerning the age of consent that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.\n- Question 44: \"No,\" Juror No. 50 did not have any views about the laws governing sex trafficking and sex crimes against minors that would affect his ability to be fair and impartial.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009013",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009013"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell. It discusses the questionnaire completed by potential jurors, including Juror No. 50. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009014.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "13",
+    "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 13 of 66\n\nQuestion 47, \"No,\" Juror No. 50 would not have any difficulty assessing the credibility of alleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as he would assess the credibility of any other witness.\n\nFinally, and most importantly, Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" when asked in Question 48 if he had ever been the victim of victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault, including actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.\n\nC. Juror No 50's voir dire\n\nPrior to trial, defense counsel moved the Court to permit limited, attorney-conducted voir dire of potential jurors. Doc. 342. Defense counsel explained that given the nature of the allegations, the stakes involved, and the omnipresent media coverage, attorney-conducted voir dire to supplement the Court's voir dire was necessary to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Id. at 7-15. Defense counsel pointed specifically to the potential that certain jurors could not be fair if they had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. Id. at 9-10. The Court declined to permit attorney-conducted voir dire. TR 10/21/2021, p 8.\n\nPrior to trial, defense counsel also proposed that the Court individually ask each juror in person several questions including \"Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime?\" and \"Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a sexual crime?\" Doc. 367-1 at 14. The government objected that the questions were \"duplicative of questions included in the proposed voir dire\" and should not be asked\n\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00009014",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Question 47, \"No,\" Juror No. 50 would not have any difficulty assessing the credibility of alleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as he would assess the credibility of any other witness.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, and most importantly, Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" when asked in Question 48 if he had ever been the victim of victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault, including actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "C. Juror No 50's voir dire",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Prior to trial, defense counsel moved the Court to permit limited, attorney-conducted voir dire of potential jurors. Doc. 342. Defense counsel explained that given the nature of the allegations, the stakes involved, and the omnipresent media coverage, attorney-conducted voir dire to supplement the Court's voir dire was necessary to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Id. at 7-15. Defense counsel pointed specifically to the potential that certain jurors could not be fair if they had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. Id. at 9-10. The Court declined to permit attorney-conducted voir dire. TR 10/21/2021, p 8.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Prior to trial, defense counsel also proposed that the Court individually ask each juror in person several questions including \"Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime?\" and \"Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a sexual crime?\" Doc. 367-1 at 14. The government objected that the questions were \"duplicative of questions included in the proposed voir dire\" and should not be asked",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009014",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "government"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "10/21/2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "342",
+      "367-1"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the voir dire process and the questioning of potential jurors. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009015.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "14",
+    "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 14 of 66 again. Id. at 13. The defense responded in part that \"asking the questions live when the jurors' reactions, hesitations, explanations can be explored by the Court and observed by the parties will aid in the selection of an impartial and fair jury.\" Id. The Court denied the defense's request. Juror No. 50 appeared for his voir dire on November 16. Because Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" to all the relevant questions about sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and being the victim of a crime, his voir dire was very brief, spanning just seven pages of transcript. TR 11/6/2021, pp 128-34; EXHIBIT 2. The Court did not ask Juror No. 50 whether the abuse he suffered would make it difficult to be a fair and impartial juror, whether he would be biased against Ms. Maxwell, whether he could set aside any bias he might have, or whether he could fairly and impartially evaluate Ms. Maxwell's defense, which challenged, in part, the reliability of her accusers' memories. As to the questions the Court did ask (most of which addressed his personal background),",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 14 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "again. Id. at 13. The defense responded in part that \"asking the questions live when the jurors' reactions, hesitations, explanations can be explored by the Court and observed by the parties will aid in the selection of an impartial and fair jury.\" Id. The Court denied the defense's request.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 appeared for his voir dire on November 16. Because Juror No. 50 answered \"no\" to all the relevant questions about sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment and being the victim of a crime, his voir dire was very brief, spanning just seven pages of transcript. TR 11/6/2021, pp 128-34; EXHIBIT 2. The Court did not ask Juror No. 50 whether the abuse he suffered would make it difficult to be a fair and impartial juror, whether he would be biased against Ms. Maxwell, whether he could set aside any bias he might have, or whether he could fairly and impartially evaluate Ms. Maxwell's defense, which challenged, in part, the reliability of her accusers' memories.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As to the questions the Court did ask (most of which addressed his personal background),",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "other",
+      "content": "[redacted text]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009015",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/6/2021",
+      "November 16",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "TR 11/6/2021, pp 128-34",
+      "EXHIBIT 2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009015"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. There are several redactions in the text, indicating sensitive or confidential information has been removed."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009016.json

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "15",
+    "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 15 of 66 At the end of the very brief voir dire examination, the Court asked Juror No. 50 if he had \"[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to\" be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50 said \"no.\" Id. The Court concluded: \"Other than what I have asked you, do you have any reason to think that you can't be fair and impartial here?\" Id. Juror No. 50 responded, \"I do not.\" Id. The Court inquired whether the parties had any follow-up questions. Because Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell's attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions. 8 DOJ-OGR-00009016",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "At the end of the very brief voir dire examination, the Court asked Juror No. 50 if he had \"[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to\" be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50 said \"no.\" Id. The Court concluded: \"Other than what I have asked you, do you have any reason to think that you can't be fair and impartial here?\" Id. Juror No. 50 responded, \"I do not.\" Id.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court inquired whether the parties had any follow-up questions. Because Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell's attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009016",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009016"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009017.json

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "16",
+    "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 16 of 66\n\nD. The final composition of the jury\n\nSix-hundred and ninety-four potential jurors answered the 50-question questionnaire.\n\n2 The parties submitted this joint list before reviewing the second round of questionnaires.\n\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00009017",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 16 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "D. The final composition of the jury",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Six-hundred and ninety-four potential jurors answered the 50-question questionnaire.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2 The parties submitted this joint list before reviewing the second round of questionnaires.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009017",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009017"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely to protect sensitive information."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009018.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "17",
+    "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 17 of 66",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 17 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "other",
+      "content": "Multiple redacted sections with black bars",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009018",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009018"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains extensive redactions with black bars, making most of the content unreadable. The visible text includes a case number, document number, filing date, and page number."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009019.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "18",
+    "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 18 of 66\n\nOf the 5 jurors seated as alternates, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.4\n\nOf the 12 deliberating jurors, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\nAs we now know, however, Juror No. 50 was not telling the truth when he denied being a victim of a crime or being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\nAnd as explained below, it appears a second deliberating juror was also untruthful when they denied being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\nII. Juror No. 50's admissions that he wasn't truthful with the Court\n\n4 The court originally seated 6 alternates, but one alternate became a deliberating juror when an original juror was excused due to a family commitment. None of the 18 individuals selected for service as a deliberating or alternate juror answered \"yes\" when asked if they were a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.\n\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00009019",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 18 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Of the 5 jurors seated as alternates, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.4",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Of the 12 deliberating jurors, none disclosed on their questionnaires that they were victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As we now know, however, Juror No. 50 was not telling the truth when he denied being a victim of a crime or being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "And as explained below, it appears a second deliberating juror was also untruthful when they denied being a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "II. Juror No. 50's admissions that he wasn't truthful with the Court",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4 The court originally seated 6 alternates, but one alternate became a deliberating juror when an original juror was excused due to a family commitment. None of the 18 individuals selected for service as a deliberating or alternate juror answered \"yes\" when asked if they were a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009019",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009019"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses juror responses to questionnaires regarding sexual abuse, assault, or harassment. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009020.json

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "19 of 66",
+    "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 19 of 66\n\nA. Juror No. 50's statements to the media\n\n1. The interview with The Independent\n\nOn January 4, 2022, less than one week after the jury returned its verdict, Lucia Osborne-Crowley of The Independent published an article based on an interview with Juror No. 50.5 Going by the name Scotty David, Juror No. 50 told Ms. Osborne-Crowley that \"[t]his verdict is for all the victims\" and \"shows that you can be found guilty no matter your status.\" Juror No. 50 admitted to being a victim of sexual assault and abuse, telling Ms. Osborne-Crowley that he revealed the abuse to the jury and that his story was fundamental to the jury's verdict. According to Juror No. 50, the \"jury room went dead silent when he shared his story.\"\n\nJuror No. 50 explained to Ms. Osborne-Crowley how his own experience helped the jury come to believe the alleged victims despite the holes and inconsistencies in their stories. \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the colour of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"\n\nRelying on his own experiences, Juror No. 50 refused to credit the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Ms. Maxwell's expert witness on memory. None of Dr. Loftus's testimony, said Juror No. 50, \"relate[d]to traumatic memory.\" Juror No. 50 explained all of this to the jury. Ms. Maxwell's accusers \"were all believable,\" Juror No. 50 said. \"Nothing they said felt to me like a lie.\" Sometimes, he said, you can misremember trivial details of a traumatic event without every doubting the core of the memory.\n\n5 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/maxwell-juror-account-abuse-b1986478.html\n\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00009020",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 19 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. Juror No. 50's statements to the media\n\n1. The interview with The Independent",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 4, 2022, less than one week after the jury returned its verdict, Lucia Osborne-Crowley of The Independent published an article based on an interview with Juror No. 50.5 Going by the name Scotty David, Juror No. 50 told Ms. Osborne-Crowley that \"[t]his verdict is for all the victims\" and \"shows that you can be found guilty no matter your status.\" Juror No. 50 admitted to being a victim of sexual assault and abuse, telling Ms. Osborne-Crowley that he revealed the abuse to the jury and that his story was fundamental to the jury's verdict. According to Juror No. 50, the \"jury room went dead silent when he shared his story.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 explained to Ms. Osborne-Crowley how his own experience helped the jury come to believe the alleged victims despite the holes and inconsistencies in their stories. \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the colour of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Relying on his own experiences, Juror No. 50 refused to credit the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Ms. Maxwell's expert witness on memory. None of Dr. Loftus's testimony, said Juror No. 50, \"relate[d]to traumatic memory.\" Juror No. 50 explained all of this to the jury. Ms. Maxwell's accusers \"were all believable,\" Juror No. 50 said. \"Nothing they said felt to me like a lie.\" Sometimes, he said, you can misremember trivial details of a traumatic event without every doubting the core of the memory.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/maxwell-juror-account-abuse-b1986478.html",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009020",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crowley",
+      "Scotty David",
+      "Dr. Elizabeth Loftus",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "The Independent"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 4, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009020"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. It includes a detailed account of an interview with Juror No. 50, who shared his experiences as a victim of sexual assault and how it influenced his decision-making during the trial. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009021.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "20",
+    "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 20 of 66\nJuror No. 50 also explained, again based on his personal experience, why it was immaterial to him and the jury that the alleged victims did not disclose Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement until very recently, some twenty years after the alleged abuse. \"I didn't disclose my abuse until I was in high school,\" he said.\nJuror No. 50 also had an excuse for why the alleged victims in this case kept going back to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and accepting help from them even after they had been abused. The alleged victims' conduct, explained Juror No. 50, was irrelevant to their credibility. In Juror No. 50's view, Ms. Maxwell's defense team was continually attacking the alleged victims and trying to get the jury to judge them for their decisions, as opposed to arguing that their stories were not worthy of belief.\n2. The interview with the Daily Mail\nOn January 5, the Daily Mail published an article based on its interview with Juror No. 50,6 in which he described Ms. Maxwell as a \"predator.\" Juror No. 50 also shared that he helped other members of the jury understand things from a victim's point of view and explained how \"you can't remember all the details\" of traumatic memories: \"there are some things that run together.\" When Juror No. 50 told his fellow jurors of the abuse he suffered, the room \"went silent.\" Although he couldn't remember every detail, there were others that stuck with him: \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"\nJuror No. 50 said the verdict was for \"all the victims.\"\n6 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00009021",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 20 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 also explained, again based on his personal experience, why it was immaterial to him and the jury that the alleged victims did not disclose Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement until very recently, some twenty years after the alleged abuse. \"I didn't disclose my abuse until I was in high school,\" he said.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 also had an excuse for why the alleged victims in this case kept going back to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell and accepting help from them even after they had been abused. The alleged victims' conduct, explained Juror No. 50, was irrelevant to their credibility. In Juror No. 50's view, Ms. Maxwell's defense team was continually attacking the alleged victims and trying to get the jury to judge them for their decisions, as opposed to arguing that their stories were not worthy of belief.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. The interview with the Daily Mail",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 5, the Daily Mail published an article based on its interview with Juror No. 50,6 in which he described Ms. Maxwell as a \"predator.\" Juror No. 50 also shared that he helped other members of the jury understand things from a victim's point of view and explained how \"you can't remember all the details\" of traumatic memories: \"there are some things that run together.\" When Juror No. 50 told his fellow jurors of the abuse he suffered, the room \"went silent.\" Although he couldn't remember every detail, there were others that stuck with him: \"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video.\"\nJuror No. 50 said the verdict was for \"all the victims.\"",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009021",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Mr. Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Daily Mail"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 5",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009021"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger document, as indicated by the page number and document number in the header."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009022.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "21",
+    "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 21 of 66\n\n3. The interview with Reuters\nThe same day the Daily Mail published its article, Reuters also published a story based on an interview Juror No. 50 provided to journalist Luc Cohen.7 In the Reuters interview, Juror No. 50 elaborated about the purpose and effect of his disclosing to the jury that he was a victim of sexual assault. According to Juror No. 50, coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn’t easy, to be honest.” In fact, several jurors doubted the credibility of Jane and Carolyn. “When I shared that [I had been sexually abused],” recounted Juror No. 50, the jurors who had doubts “were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.”\n\n4. The partial video of the interview with the Daily Mail\nOn January 7, the Daily Mail published a video of a portion of the interview with Juror No. 50. This video is submitted to the Court as EXHIBIT 3. The video shows the moment when the interviewer confronts Juror No. 50 about whether he disclosed to the Court and the parties that he was a victim of sexual assault. The interviewer asks whether Juror No. 50’s history of being sexually abused was “something that [he’d] said yes to in the questionnaire” such that it “was something people were aware of when [he was] selected as a juror.”\nJuror No. 50 denied being asked such a question, saying, “No, they don’t ask your sexual abuse history. They didn’t ask it in the questionnaire.”\n\n7 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/\n\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00009022",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 21 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. The interview with Reuters\nThe same day the Daily Mail published its article, Reuters also published a story based on an interview Juror No. 50 provided to journalist Luc Cohen.7 In the Reuters interview, Juror No. 50 elaborated about the purpose and effect of his disclosing to the jury that he was a victim of sexual assault. According to Juror No. 50, coming to a unanimous verdict “wasn’t easy, to be honest.” In fact, several jurors doubted the credibility of Jane and Carolyn. “When I shared that [I had been sexually abused],” recounted Juror No. 50, the jurors who had doubts “were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.”",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4. The partial video of the interview with the Daily Mail\nOn January 7, the Daily Mail published a video of a portion of the interview with Juror No. 50. This video is submitted to the Court as EXHIBIT 3. The video shows the moment when the interviewer confronts Juror No. 50 about whether he disclosed to the Court and the parties that he was a victim of sexual assault. The interviewer asks whether Juror No. 50’s history of being sexually abused was “something that [he’d] said yes to in the questionnaire” such that it “was something people were aware of when [he was] selected as a juror.”\nJuror No. 50 denied being asked such a question, saying, “No, they don’t ask your sexual abuse history. They didn’t ask it in the questionnaire.”",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "14",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009022",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Luc Cohen",
+      "Jane",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Reuters",
+      "Daily Mail",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 7",
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2022-01-05"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "EXHIBIT 3",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009022"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It discusses interviews with Juror No. 50 and contains references to news articles and court exhibits."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009023.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "22 of 66",
+    "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 22 of 66\n\nThe interviewer challenges Juror No. 50 on this response, saying, \"I thought in the questionnaire, there was a question that asked if you were a victim or if you were a friend or a relative of a victim.\" \"Pretty sure it was number 48,\" the interviewer concludes.\n\n\"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 responds, his face turning red.\n\nThe interviewer notices that Juror No. 50's face is flushing, saying, \"You're not out in the sun right now [inaudible].\"\n\nJuror No. 50 stumbles to respond: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I honestly—that's why I answered it that way. I don't remember it being there but. Um... I did answer, I definitely remember a family or relative or something but—being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions.\"\n\nB. Juror No. 50's social media activity\n\nOn January 4, after Ms. Osborne-Crawley first published her interview with Juror No. 50, Annie Farmer quote-Tweeted a Tweet from Ms. Osborne-Crawley, linking to the interview. Ms. Farmer said:\n\n15\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009023",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 22 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The interviewer challenges Juror No. 50 on this response, saying, \"I thought in the questionnaire, there was a question that asked if you were a victim or if you were a friend or a relative of a victim.\" \"Pretty sure it was number 48,\" the interviewer concludes.\n\n\"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 responds, his face turning red.\n\nThe interviewer notices that Juror No. 50's face is flushing, saying, \"You're not out in the sun right now [inaudible].\"\n\nJuror No. 50 stumbles to respond: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I honestly—that's why I answered it that way. I don't remember it being there but. Um... I did answer, I definitely remember a family or relative or something but—being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions.\"",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. Juror No. 50's social media activity",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On January 4, after Ms. Osborne-Crawley first published her interview with Juror No. 50, Annie Farmer quote-Tweeted a Tweet from Ms. Osborne-Crawley, linking to the interview. Ms. Farmer said:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009023",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ms. Osborne-Crawley",
+      "Annie Farmer"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "January 4"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009023"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009024.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "23",
+    "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 23 of 66 annie farmer @anniefarmer · 9h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 8 43 162 A short time later, Juror No. 50 “liked” Ms. Farmer's Tweet. Juror No. 50 then Tweeted directly to Ms. Farmer in response: 16 DOJ-OGR-00009024",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 23 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "annie farmer @anniefarmer · 9h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislaineMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8 43 162",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A short time later, Juror No. 50 “liked” Ms. Farmer's Tweet. Juror No. 50 then Tweeted directly to Ms. Farmer in response:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009024",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "annie farmer",
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crowley",
+      "Scotty",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009024"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, containing a screenshot of a Twitter conversation."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009025.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "24 of 66",
+    "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 24 of 66 9:07 Outlook Scotty David 1Tweet 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes annie farmer @anniefarmer · 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice Lucia Osborne-Crawley · 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161 Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC · 4h Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story Juror No. 50 also “liked” Ms. Osborne-Crawley's Tweet linking to his interview. At the time Juror No. 50 Tweeted to Ms. Farmer, his Twitter handle was the same name he used in his press interviews: “@ScottyDavidNYC.” 17 DOJ-OGR-00009025",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 24 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9:07 Outlook Scotty David 1Tweet 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "annie farmer @anniefarmer · 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, & for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Lucia Osborne-Crawley · 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE: I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC · 4h Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 also “liked” Ms. Osborne-Crawley's Tweet linking to his interview. At the time Juror No. 50 Tweeted to Ms. Farmer, his Twitter handle was the same name he used in his press interviews: “@ScottyDavidNYC.”",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17 DOJ-OGR-00009025",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Scotty David",
+      "annie farmer",
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crawley",
+      "Ms. Osborne-Crawley",
+      "Ms. Farmer",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ghislain Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York City"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009025"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislain Maxwell trial, containing a screenshot of a Twitter conversation and analysis of the juror's Twitter activity."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009026.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "25",
+    "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 25 of 66 9:07 Outlook Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC Manhattan, NY Joined April 2021 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes annie farmer @anniefarmer 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, and for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE! I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161 Shortly after Tweeting Ms. Farmer, however, Juror No. 50 changed his Twitter handle to \"@NycSddd.\" He also attempted to delete his Tweet to Ms. Farmer. 18 DOJ-OGR-00009026",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 25 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Scotty David @ScottyDavidNYC Manhattan, NY Joined April 2021 39 Following 1 Follower Not followed by anyone you're following Tweets Tweets & replies Media Likes",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "annie farmer @anniefarmer 8h Reading this I was overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude- for this juror who was brave enough to disclose his own trauma to help others understand the experience, for the other women who testified, and for my sister all the other survivors who spoke out and kept pushing for justice",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Lucia Osborne-Crowley 13h WORLDWIDE EXCLUSIVE! I secured the first ever interview with a member of the jury in the #GhislainMaxwellTrial. I'm so grateful to Scotty for talking to me about why... Show this thread 9 43 161",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Shortly after Tweeting Ms. Farmer, however, Juror No. 50 changed his Twitter handle to \"@NycSddd.\" He also attempted to delete his Tweet to Ms. Farmer.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "18",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009026",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Scotty David",
+      "annie farmer",
+      "Lucia Osborne-Crowley",
+      "Ms. Farmer",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ghislain Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "Manhattan",
+      "NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "April 2021",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009026"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a screenshot of a Twitter profile and related tweets. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009027.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "26 of 66",
+    "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 26 of 66 9:31 1 Outlook Tweet S @NycSdddd Replying to @anniefarmer Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story 4:07 PM 1/4/22 Twitter for iPhone 1 Retweet 3 Likes This Tweet has been deleted. Juror No. 50 did not \"unlike\" Ms. Farmer's Tweet, or the Tweet by Ms. Osborne-Crawley linking to his interview. In early January, Juror No. 50 also posted about his jury service on his Instagram account, 19 DOJ-OGR-00009027",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 26 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9:31 1 Outlook Tweet S @NycSdddd Replying to @anniefarmer Thanks for being brave enough to stand up and share your experience. Your story was critical in how we reached our verdict in that jury room. Thanks for sharing my story 4:07 PM 1/4/22 Twitter for iPhone 1 Retweet 3 Likes This Tweet has been deleted.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 did not \"unlike\" Ms. Farmer's Tweet, or the Tweet by Ms. Osborne-Crawley linking to his interview. In early January, Juror No. 50 also posted about his jury service on his Instagram account,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "19 DOJ-OGR-00009027",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Farmer",
+      "Ms. Osborne-Crawley",
+      "@NycSdddd",
+      "@anniefarmer",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Twitter"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1/4/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009027"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing a juror's social media activity during a trial. The image includes a screenshot of a deleted tweet. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009029.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "28",
+    "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 28 of 66\n\nC. A second juror admits to disclosing during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault\n\nDuring his press tour, Juror No. 50 revealed in interviews that he was not alone in revealing to jurors that he was a victim of sexual assault, describing to reporter that a second juror also disclosed that they were a victim of sexual abuse.8 On January 5, the New York Times published an article confirming Juror No. 50's statement, reporting that \"a second juror described in an interview . . . having been sexually abused as a child.\"9\n\n\"This juror, who requested anonymity, said that they, too, had discussed the experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to help shape the jury's discussions.\" To date, this juror has not publicly revealed their identity, and Ms. Maxwell does not know who it is.10\n\nApplicable Law\n\nI. Juror No. 50's misconduct deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.\n\nA. A party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and\n\n8 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10379445/Ghislain-Maxwells-lawyers-fought-ask-jurors-detailed-questions-sexual-abuse.html\n\n9 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/nyregion/maxwell-trial-jury-inquiry.html\n\n10\n\n21\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009029",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 28 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "C. A second juror admits to disclosing during deliberations that they were a victim of sexual assault",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "During his press tour, Juror No. 50 revealed in interviews that he was not alone in revealing to jurors that he was a victim of sexual assault, describing to reporter that a second juror also disclosed that they were a victim of sexual abuse.8 On January 5, the New York Times published an article confirming Juror No. 50's statement, reporting that \"a second juror described in an interview . . . having been sexually abused as a child.\"9\n\n\"This juror, who requested anonymity, said that they, too, had discussed the experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to help shape the jury's discussions.\" To date, this juror has not publicly revealed their identity, and Ms. Maxwell does not know who it is.10",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Applicable Law",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. Juror No. 50's misconduct deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. A party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror's voir dire response was false and",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10379445/Ghislain-Maxwells-lawyers-fought-ask-jurors-detailed-questions-sexual-abuse.html\n\n9 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/nyregion/maxwell-trial-jury-inquiry.html\n\n10",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "21",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009029",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "New York Times",
+      "Daily Mail"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 5",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009029"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text discusses juror misconduct and potential bias. The document is well-formatted and mostly clean, with some redacted sections at the bottom."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009030.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "29",
+    "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 29 of 66\n\nsecond, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, \"[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).\n\nThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court recognized that \"[o]ne touchstone of a fair trial is an impartial trier of fact—‘a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.’\" 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)). \"The right to trial before an impartial trier of fact—be it a jury or a judge—therefore implicates Due Process as well as Sixth Amendment rights.\" United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\nIn turn, \"[v]oir dire plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting new trial to three defendants based on juror dishonesty during voir dire and concluding one defendant, Parse, waived his new trial motion), vacated and remanded sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court's conclusion that the defendant Parse waived his new trial motion). It is bedrock constitutional law that defendants have a right to \"a full and fair opportunity to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen\" and that \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges\n\n22\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009030",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\n\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, \"[u]pon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).\n\nThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court recognized that \"[o]ne touchstone of a fair trial is an impartial trier of fact—‘a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.’\" 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)). \"The right to trial before an impartial trier of fact—be it a jury or a judge—therefore implicates Due Process as well as Sixth Amendment rights.\" United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201 (2d Cir. 2002).\n\nIn turn, \"[v]oir dire plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting new trial to three defendants based on juror dishonesty during voir dire and concluding one defendant, Parse, waived his new trial motion), vacated and remanded sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court's conclusion that the defendant Parse waived his new trial motion). It is bedrock constitutional law that defendants have a right to \"a full and fair opportunity to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen\" and that \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "22",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009030",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Phillips",
+      "Greenwood",
+      "Parse",
+      "Daugerdas",
+      "Nelson"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Supreme Court",
+      "U.S."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1984",
+      "1982",
+      "2002",
+      "2012",
+      "2015"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "464 U.S. 548",
+      "455 U.S. 209",
+      "277 F.3d 164",
+      "867 F. Supp. 2d 445",
+      "789 F.3d 83",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009030"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009031.json

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "30",
+    "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 30 of 66\nfor cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 139 (2d Cir. 1979) (internal quotations and citations omitted). \"A juror's dishonesty during voir dire undermines a defendant's right to a fair trial.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468; U.S. Const. amend. VI.\n\"[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.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\nA defendant need not demonstrate prejudice when a juror gives a false answer to a material question during voir dire if the juror would have been subject to a challenge for cause if he had answered honestly. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 (2000) (the \"seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause\" \"would require reversal\"). When a biased juror deliberates on a jury, structural error occurs, and a new trial is required without a showing of actual prejudice. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-10 (1991).\nB. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial.\n\"Intentionally false\" juror answers are not a prerequisite to a finding that a defendant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury have been violated. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 553-56; id. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring); id. at 557-59 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). So long as a truthful answer would have subjected the juror to a challenge for cause based on bias, an inadvertent false answer is just as 23\nDOJ-OGR-00009031",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 30 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "for cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 139 (2d Cir. 1979) (internal quotations and citations omitted). \"A juror's dishonesty during voir dire undermines a defendant's right to a fair trial.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468; U.S. Const. amend. VI.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"[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.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A defendant need not demonstrate prejudice when a juror gives a false answer to a material question during voir dire if the juror would have been subject to a challenge for cause if he had answered honestly. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 (2000) (the \"seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause\" \"would require reversal\"). When a biased juror deliberates on a jury, structural error occurs, and a new trial is required without a showing of actual prejudice. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-10 (1991).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Intentionally false\" juror answers are not a prerequisite to a finding that a defendant's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury have been violated. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 553-56; id. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring); id. at 557-59 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). So long as a truthful answer would have subjected the juror to a challenge for cause based on bias, an inadvertent false answer is just as",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "23",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009031",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Barnes",
+      "Daugerdas",
+      "Stewart",
+      "McDonough",
+      "Martinez-Salazar",
+      "Fulminante",
+      "Blackmun",
+      "Brennan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Arizona"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1979",
+      "2006",
+      "2000",
+      "1991"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "604 F.2d 121",
+      "867 F. Supp. 2d",
+      "433 F.3d 273",
+      "464 U.S.",
+      "528 U.S. 304",
+      "499 U.S. 279",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009031"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009032.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "31",
+    "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 31 of 66\ninvidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).11 As the Second Circuit held in Langford:\nWe read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate, for though the McDonough Court began with the inadvertent response before it, it stated that the further showing of cause must be made even after a juror's \"failure to answer honestly,\" and it hypothesized that there could be various \"motives for concealing.\" Concurring in the judgment, Justice Brennan similarly stated that a second element—bias—should be required even if the juror's erroneous response was deliberate. Thus, he stated that the\nproper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant. . .\n. . . Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in th[e] . . . determination of actual bias.\nLangford, 990 F.2d at 68 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).\nThe seminal case addressing a juror's false answers during voir dire is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. McDonough was a products liability action in which Juror Payton remained silent when the district court asked, \"how many of you [potential jurors] have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury [in] an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that result in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering?\" 464 U.S. at 550. After trial, it was discovered\n11 This caselaw uses \"deliberate\" and \"intentional\" interchangeably.\n24\nDOJ-OGR-00009032",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 31 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "invidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).11 As the Second Circuit held in Langford:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate, for though the McDonough Court began with the inadvertent response before it, it stated that the further showing of cause must be made even after a juror's \"failure to answer honestly,\" and it hypothesized that there could be various \"motives for concealing.\" Concurring in the judgment, Justice Brennan similarly stated that a second element—bias—should be required even if the juror's erroneous response was deliberate. Thus, he stated that the",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "proper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant. . .",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": ". . . Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in th[e] . . . determination of actual bias.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Langford, 990 F.2d at 68 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The seminal case addressing a juror's false answers during voir dire is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. McDonough was a products liability action in which Juror Payton remained silent when the district court asked, \"how many of you [potential jurors] have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury [in] an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that result in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering?\" 464 U.S. at 550. After trial, it was discovered",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11 This caselaw uses \"deliberate\" and \"intentional\" interchangeably.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "24",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009032",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Justice Brennan",
+      "Juror Payton"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "990 F.2d 65",
+      "464 U.S. 550",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009032"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009033.json

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "32",
+    "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 32 of 66\nthat Juror Payton's son had been injured in an explosion of a fire truck. Id. at 551. The district court denied a motion for a new trial without holding a hearing. Id.\nThe court of appeals reversed, ordering a new trial instead of remanding for a hearing. Id. at 551-52. The court of appeals held that if “an average prospective juror would have disclosed the information, and that information would have been significant and cogent evidence of the juror's probable bias, a new trial is required to rectify the failure to disclose it.” Id. at 552. “Good faith,” said the court, was “irrelevant to the inquiry.” Id.\nThe Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, concluding that it employed the wrong standard and erred in reaching the merits instead of remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 556. As for the correct legal standard, the Court said that\nto obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nId. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider any outstanding issues and, assuming the judgment wasn't reversed for other reasons, to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing applying the new legal standard. Id.\nThe court emphasized that “/voir dire examination serves to protect [the fair trial] right by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors” and that the “necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors if [voir dire] is to serve its purpose is obvious.” Id. at 554. The Court did not expressly disavow the court of appeals\n25\nDOJ-OGR-00009033",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 32 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "that Juror Payton's son had been injured in an explosion of a fire truck. Id. at 551. The district court denied a motion for a new trial without holding a hearing. Id.\nThe court of appeals reversed, ordering a new trial instead of remanding for a hearing. Id. at 551-52. The court of appeals held that if “an average prospective juror would have disclosed the information, and that information would have been significant and cogent evidence of the juror's probable bias, a new trial is required to rectify the failure to disclose it.” Id. at 552. “Good faith,” said the court, was “irrelevant to the inquiry.” Id.\nThe Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, concluding that it employed the wrong standard and erred in reaching the merits instead of remanding the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 556. As for the correct legal standard, the Court said that\nto obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nId. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider any outstanding issues and, assuming the judgment wasn't reversed for other reasons, to remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing applying the new legal standard. Id.\nThe court emphasized that “/voir dire examination serves to protect [the fair trial] right by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the part of potential jurors” and that the “necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors if [voir dire] is to serve its purpose is obvious.” Id. at 554. The Court did not expressly disavow the court of appeals",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "25",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009033",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Payton"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Supreme Court",
+      "Court of Appeals"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009033"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses a legal issue related to juror bias and the process for obtaining a new trial. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009034.json

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "33",
+    "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 33 of 66 appeals' statement that the good faith of a potential juror was \"irrelevant\" to the inquiry. Id. at 553-56. There were two concurring opinions in McDonough, joined by a total of five justices, which make clear that an intentionally false answer is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. Writing for himself and Justices Stevens and O'Connor, Justice Blackmun said: I agree with the Court that the proper inquiry in this case is whether the defendant had the benefit of an impartial trier of fact. I also agree that, in most cases, the honesty or dishonesty of a juror's response is the best initial indicator of whether the juror in fact was impartial. I therefore join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to state that I understand the Court's holding not to foreclose the normal avenue of relief available to a party who is asserting that he did not have the benefit of an impartial jury. Thus, regardless of whether a juror's answer is honest or dishonest, it remains within a trial court's option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-trial hearing at which the movant has the opportunity to demonstrate actual bias or, in exceptional circumstances, that the facts are such that bias is to be inferred. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-16 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Id. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring (emphasis added)). This was the entirety of Justice Blackmun's dissent. Id. For his part, Justice Brennan joined by Justice Marshall recognized that \"the bias of a juror will rarely be admitted by the juror himself, 'partly because the juror may have an interest in concealing his own bias and partly because the juror may be unaware of it.'\" Id. at 558 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting majority opinion). \"Necessarily,\" then, Justice Brennan explained, bias \"must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances.\" Id. \"Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or 26 DOJ-OGR-00009034",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 33 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "appeals' statement that the good faith of a potential juror was \"irrelevant\" to the inquiry. Id. at 553-56. There were two concurring opinions in McDonough, joined by a total of five justices, which make clear that an intentionally false answer is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. Writing for himself and Justices Stevens and O'Connor, Justice Blackmun said: I agree with the Court that the proper inquiry in this case is whether the defendant had the benefit of an impartial trier of fact. I also agree that, in most cases, the honesty or dishonesty of a juror's response is the best initial indicator of whether the juror in fact was impartial. I therefore join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to state that I understand the Court's holding not to foreclose the normal avenue of relief available to a party who is asserting that he did not have the benefit of an impartial jury. Thus, regardless of whether a juror's answer is honest or dishonest, it remains within a trial court's option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-trial hearing at which the movant has the opportunity to demonstrate actual bias or, in exceptional circumstances, that the facts are such that bias is to be inferred. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-16 (O'Connor, J., concurring). Id. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring (emphasis added)). This was the entirety of Justice Blackmun's dissent. Id. For his part, Justice Brennan joined by Justice Marshall recognized that \"the bias of a juror will rarely be admitted by the juror himself, 'partly because the juror may have an interest in concealing his own bias and partly because the juror may be unaware of it.'\" Id. at 558 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting majority opinion). \"Necessarily,\" then, Justice Brennan explained, bias \"must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances.\" Id. \"Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "26",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009034",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Blackmun",
+      "Stevens",
+      "O'Connor",
+      "Brennan",
+      "Marshall",
+      "Phillips"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009034",
+      "455 U.S. 209"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, specifically a page from a legal brief or opinion. The text is dense and technical, suggesting a high level of legal expertise. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009035.json

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "34",
+    "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 34 of 66\n\nintentional, are simply factors to be considered in this latter determination of actual bias.\"\nId. \"One easily can imagine cases in which a prospective juror provides what he subjectively believes to be an honest answer, yet that same answer is objectively incorrect and therefore suggests that the individual would be a biased juror in the particular case.\"\nId. at 559.\n\nThe Second Circuit adopted this reading of McDonough, endorsing the view expressed by Justice Brennan (and shared by Justice Blackmun) that an intentionally false answer is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (\"We read this multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.\"); id. at 68 (adopting Justice Brennan's reasoning). Accordingly, in the Second Circuit, \"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.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nOf course, individuals cannot be allowed to lie their way onto a jury. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Cardozo concluded: \"If the answers to the questions [during voir dire] are willfully evasive or knowingly untrue, the talesman, when accepted, is a juror in name only . . . His relation to the court and to the parties is tainted in its origin; it is a mere pretense and sham.\" Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 11 (1933). \"[A] juror who lies [his] way onto a jury is not really a juror at all; [h]e is an interloper akin 'to a stranger who sneaks into the jury room.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp.\n27\nDOJ-OGR-00009035",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 34 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "intentional, are simply factors to be considered in this latter determination of actual bias.\" Id. \"One easily can imagine cases in which a prospective juror provides what he subjectively believes to be an honest answer, yet that same answer is objectively incorrect and therefore suggests that the individual would be a biased juror in the particular case.\" Id. at 559.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Second Circuit adopted this reading of McDonough, endorsing the view expressed by Justice Brennan (and shared by Justice Blackmun) that an intentionally false answer is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (\"We read this multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.\"); id. at 68 (adopting Justice Brennan's reasoning). Accordingly, in the Second Circuit, \"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.\" United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Of course, individuals cannot be allowed to lie their way onto a jury. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Cardozo concluded: \"If the answers to the questions [during voir dire] are willfully evasive or knowingly untrue, the talesman, when accepted, is a juror in name only . . . His relation to the court and to the parties is tainted in its origin; it is a mere pretense and sham.\" Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 11 (1933). \"[A] juror who lies [his] way onto a jury is not really a juror at all; [h]e is an interloper akin 'to a stranger who sneaks into the jury room.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "27",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009035",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Justice Brennan",
+      "Justice Blackmun",
+      "Justice Cardozo"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Supreme Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1993",
+      "2006",
+      "1933"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "990 F.2d 65",
+      "433 F.3d 273",
+      "289 U.S. 1",
+      "867 F. Supp.",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009035"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009036.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "35",
+    "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 35 of 66\n2d at 468 (quoting Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 983 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc)).\n\"[C]ourts cannot administer justice in circumstances in which a juror can commit a federal crime in order to serve as a juror in a criminal case and do so with no fear of sanction so long as a conviction results.\" United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 1989).\n\nArgument\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nThis Court must order a new trial if Ms. Maxwell can make two showings: First, that Juror No. 50'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. Even without an evidentiary hearing, Ms. Maxwell has made that showing here.\nA. Juror No.50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48.\nThere is no reasonable dispute that Juror No. 50's voir dire responses were false. Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child. Necessarily, then, Juror No. 50 did not provide truthful answers when he denied being the victim of a crime (Question 25) or being a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault (Question 48).\nAnd because being a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse is material to an individual's ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case about sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell has satisfied the first prong of the McDonough test. See United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151, 172 (D. Mass. 2011) (\"[A] matter is\n28\nDOJ-OGR-00009036",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 35 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2d at 468 (quoting Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 983 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc)).\n\"[C]ourts cannot administer justice in circumstances in which a juror can commit a federal crime in order to serve as a juror in a criminal case and do so with no fear of sanction so long as a conviction results.\" United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 1989).\n\nArgument\nI. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nThis Court must order a new trial if Ms. Maxwell can make two showings: First, that Juror No. 50'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. Even without an evidentiary hearing, Ms. Maxwell has made that showing here.\nA. Juror No.50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48.\nThere is no reasonable dispute that Juror No. 50's voir dire responses were false. Juror No. 50 has told several media outlets that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child. Necessarily, then, Juror No. 50 did not provide truthful answers when he denied being the victim of a crime (Question 25) or being a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault (Question 48).\nAnd because being a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse is material to an individual's ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in a case about sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms. Maxwell has satisfied the first prong of the McDonough test. See United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151, 172 (D. Mass. 2011) (\"[A] matter is",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "28",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009036",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Dyer",
+      "Calderon",
+      "Colombo",
+      "Stewart",
+      "Sampson",
+      "McDonough",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "9th Cir.",
+      "2d Cir.",
+      "D. Mass."
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1998",
+      "1989",
+      "2011"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "820 F. Supp. 2d 151",
+      "869 F.2d 149",
+      "151 F.3d 970",
+      "433 F.3d at 303",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009036"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the potential for a new trial due to issues with Juror No. 50's voir dire responses. The document includes citations to various legal precedents and references to specific court cases."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009037.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "36",
+    "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 36 of 66\nmaterial if it has a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the judge who must decide whether to excuse a juror for cause.\" (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999) (giving general definition of materiality))).\n\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nThe second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. See Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. \"[T]he test is not whether the true facts would compel the Court to remove a juror for cause, but rather whether a truthful response 'would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 470 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\n\"An impartial jury is one in which every juror is 'capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before [him].'\" Id. (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 554).\n\"Jurors are instructed that they are to decide the question of a defendant's guilt based solely on the evidence presented.\" Id. (citing United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 616-17 n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). A juror is biased—i.e., not impartial—if his experiences \"would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'\" Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980)); see also United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997) (juror who structured financial transactions properly excused for cause in case involving structuring of cash deposits).\n29\nDOJ-OGR-00009037",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 36 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the judge who must decide whether to excuse a juror for cause.\" (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999) (giving general definition of materiality))).\n\nB. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\nThe second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. See Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303. \"[T]he test is not whether the true facts would compel the Court to remove a juror for cause, but rather whether a truthful response 'would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 470 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556).\n\"An impartial jury is one in which every juror is 'capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before [him].'\" Id. (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 554).\n\"Jurors are instructed that they are to decide the question of a defendant's guilt based solely on the evidence presented.\" Id. (citing United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 616-17 n.10 (2d Cir. 1997). A juror is biased—i.e., not impartial—if his experiences \"would 'prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'\" Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 (1980)); see also United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997) (juror who structured financial transactions properly excused for cause in case involving structuring of cash deposits).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "29",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009037",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1999",
+      "1997",
+      "1985",
+      "1980"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009037"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the concept of juror impartiality and the grounds for challenging a juror for cause. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009038.json

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "37",
+    "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 37 of 66\n\nChallenges for cause can be based on implied bias, inferable bias, or actual basis. See Torres, 128 F.3d at 43; see also Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 162–67 (discussing at length each type of bias).\n\n1. Implied bias\n\n“Implied or presumed bias is ‘bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law.’” Torres, 128 F.3d at 45 (quoting Wood, 299 U.S. at 133). “It is attributed to a prospective juror regardless of actual partiality.” Id. “In contrast to the inquiry for actual bias, which focuses on whether the record at voir dire supports a finding that the juror was in fact partial, the issue for implied bias is whether an average person in the position of the juror in controversy would be prejudiced.” Id. (citing Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984). “And in determining whether a prospective juror is impliedly biased, ‘his statements upon voir dire [about his ability to be impartial] are totally irrelevant.’” Id. (quoting Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984).\n\nAs is relevant here, there are two ways in which courts imply bias. First, “[c]ourts imply bias ‘when there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.’” Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472 (quoting Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 163–64); see also Skaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F.3d 511, 517 (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases where bias was implied based on the juror’s experiences); see, e.g., Hunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316, 319–20 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding, in a case charging murder in the course of a burglary, that bias should be implied where two jurors were the victims of similar burglaries during deliberations); Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding, in murder case in which the defendant presented a\n\n30\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009038",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 37 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Challenges for cause can be based on implied bias, inferable bias, or actual basis. See Torres, 128 F.3d at 43; see also Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 162–67 (discussing at length each type of bias).",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Implied bias",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "“Implied or presumed bias is ‘bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law.’” Torres, 128 F.3d at 45 (quoting Wood, 299 U.S. at 133). “It is attributed to a prospective juror regardless of actual partiality.” Id. “In contrast to the inquiry for actual bias, which focuses on whether the record at voir dire supports a finding that the juror was in fact partial, the issue for implied bias is whether an average person in the position of the juror in controversy would be prejudiced.” Id. (citing Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984). “And in determining whether a prospective juror is impliedly biased, ‘his statements upon voir dire [about his ability to be impartial] are totally irrelevant.’” Id. (quoting Haynes, 398 F.2d at 984).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As is relevant here, there are two ways in which courts imply bias. First, “[c]ourts imply bias ‘when there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.’” Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472 (quoting Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d at 163–64); see also Skaggs v. Otis Elevator Co., 164 F.3d 511, 517 (10th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases where bias was implied based on the juror’s experiences); see, e.g., Hunley v. Godinez, 975 F.2d 316, 319–20 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding, in a case charging murder in the course of a burglary, that bias should be implied where two jurors were the victims of similar burglaries during deliberations); Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding, in murder case in which the defendant presented a",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "30",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009038",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Torres",
+      "Sampson",
+      "Wood",
+      "Haynes",
+      "Daugerdas",
+      "Skaggs",
+      "Hunley",
+      "Godinez",
+      "Burton",
+      "Johnson"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S.",
+      "10th Cir.",
+      "7th Cir."
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1998",
+      "1992",
+      "1991"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009038"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing legal precedents related to juror bias. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009039.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "38 of 66",
+    "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 38 of 66 defense based on having suffered domestic violence at the hands of the victim, that a juror living in similarly abusive circumstances at the time of trial, and who gave dishonest answers regarding that subject at voir dire, was impliedly biased); United States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513, 517 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (implying bias where, in a trial for participation in a heroin distribution conspiracy, a juror failed to disclose at voir dire that he had two sons who were serving long prison sentences for heroin-related crimes). Second, courts imply bias when \"repeated 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 (quotation omitted). \"A juror . . . who lies materially and repeatedly in response to legitimate inquiries about her background introduces destructive uncertainties into the process.\" Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983. Under both theories, Juror No. 50 was impliedly biased. First, bias should be implied because this is a case in which \"there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472. \"When a juror has life experiences that correspond with evidence presented during the trial, that congruence raises obvious concerns about the juror's possible bias.\" Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 167 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Torres, 128 F.3d at 47-48; Burton, 948 F.2d at 1158-59). \"In such a situation, the juror may have enormous difficulty separating her own life experiences from evidence in the case.\" Id. The First Circuit has commented, for example, that \"it would be natural for a juror who had been 31 DOJ-OGR-00009039",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 38 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "defense based on having suffered domestic violence at the hands of the victim, that a juror living in similarly abusive circumstances at the time of trial, and who gave dishonest answers regarding that subject at voir dire, was impliedly biased); United States v. Eubanks, 591 F.2d 513, 517 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (implying bias where, in a trial for participation in a heroin distribution conspiracy, a juror failed to disclose at voir dire that he had two sons who were serving long prison sentences for heroin-related crimes).",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Second, courts imply bias when \"repeated 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 (quotation omitted). \"A juror . . . who lies materially and repeatedly in response to legitimate inquiries about her background introduces destructive uncertainties into the process.\" Dyer, 151 F.3d at 983.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Under both theories, Juror No. 50 was impliedly biased. First, bias should be implied because this is a case in which \"there are similarities between the personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472. \"When a juror has life experiences that correspond with evidence presented during the trial, that congruence raises obvious concerns about the juror's possible bias.\" Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 167 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Torres, 128 F.3d at 47-48; Burton, 948 F.2d at 1158-59). \"In such a situation, the juror may have enormous difficulty separating her own life experiences from evidence in the case.\" Id. The First Circuit has commented, for example, that \"it would be natural for a juror who had been",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "31",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009039",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009039"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing juror bias in a trial. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger legal brief or opinion."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009040.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "39",
+    "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 39 of 66\nthe victim of a home invasion to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" Id.\nThe same is true here: \"It would be natural for a juror who had been the victim of [sexual assault and sexual abuse] to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" See id. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 claims to be a victim of child sexual abuse. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 delayed disclosing the abuse he suffered. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 says the memories of the abuse he suffered can be \"replayed like a video.\" And like Jane, who described Mr. Epstein's New York apartment and said it had a \"red mood,\" TR at 320, Juror No. 50 says he can remember the \"color of the carpet, [of] the walls\" in the room where he was abused.\nThese similarities are profound because they bear on the principal argument Ms. Maxwell made against her accusers' claimed memories: They were corrupted and unreliable. Juror No. 50's claim that the memory of his abuse can be \"replayed like a video\" is perhaps most significant, because it directly contradicts Dr. Loftus's expert testimony:\nQ. Memory has been termed a constructive process; correct?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Could you explain what that means to the jury.\nA. What we mean by that is as I testified earlier, we don't just record events and play it back later like a recording device would work, like a video machine, but rather, we are actually constructing our memories when we retrieve memories. We often take bits and pieces of experience sometimes\n32\nDOJ-OGR-00009040",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 39 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "the victim of a home invasion to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" Id.\nThe same is true here: \"It would be natural for a juror who had been the victim of [sexual assault and sexual abuse] to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.\" See id. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 claims to be a victim of child sexual abuse. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 delayed disclosing the abuse he suffered. Like Jane, Carolyn, Kate, and Annie Farmer, Juror No. 50 says the memories of the abuse he suffered can be \"replayed like a video.\" And like Jane, who described Mr. Epstein's New York apartment and said it had a \"red mood,\" TR at 320, Juror No. 50 says he can remember the \"color of the carpet, [of] the walls\" in the room where he was abused.\nThese similarities are profound because they bear on the principal argument Ms. Maxwell made against her accusers' claimed memories: They were corrupted and unreliable. Juror No. 50's claim that the memory of his abuse can be \"replayed like a video\" is perhaps most significant, because it directly contradicts Dr. Loftus's expert testimony:\nQ. Memory has been termed a constructive process; correct?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Could you explain what that means to the jury.\nA. What we mean by that is as I testified earlier, we don't just record events and play it back later like a recording device would work, like a video machine, but rather, we are actually constructing our memories when we retrieve memories. We often take bits and pieces of experience sometimes",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "32",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009040",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jane",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Kate",
+      "Annie Farmer",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Dr. Loftus"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009040"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the testimony of Juror No. 50 and compares it to the experiences of other alleged victims of sexual abuse. The document includes a Q&A session with Dr. Loftus, an expert witness. The overall quality of the document is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009041.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "40",
+    "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 40 of 66\nthat occurred at different times and places, bring it together, and construct what feels like a recollection.\nTR at 2427. Given Juror No. 50's personal experience and belief about memory and its reliability, there was no way he could fairly evaluate Ms. Maxwell's challenge to the credibility of her accusers' memories or the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus.12\nSeveral decisions support this conclusion. In Sampson v. United States, for example, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to order a new penalty-phase hearing in a death penalty case after a juror falsely denied, among other things, having been a victim of a crime. 724 F.3d at 154, 162. In fact, however, the juror repeatedly had been menaced by her husband with a shotgun. Id. at 168. But because the juror had not told the truth during voir dire, she was seated on a jury in a case involving a bank robbery in which the defendant threatened bank tellers at gunpoint. Id. \"These parallels,\" the Court said, \"raise a serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [the juror's] shoes would be able to disregard her own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id.\nTo be sure, the juror in Sampson did not limit her false answers to a single question. She also answered falsely to several other questions during voir dire, some material and some not. Id. at 162-63, 166. A combination of factors led the First Circuit to affirm the order for a new penalty-phase hearing. Id. at 168. Here, Juror No. 50's false\n12 Juror No. 50's confidence in his memory is not necessarily a predictor of the memory's reliability. As Dr. Loftus testified, \"when you have post-event suggestion or intervention, people get very confident about their wrong answers, and you can see that even wrong answers or false information, false memories can be expressed with a high degree of confidence.\" TR at 2430.\n33\nDOJ-OGR-00009041",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 40 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "that occurred at different times and places, bring it together, and construct what feels like a recollection.\nTR at 2427. Given Juror No. 50's personal experience and belief about memory and its reliability, there was no way he could fairly evaluate Ms. Maxwell's challenge to the credibility of her accusers' memories or the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus.12\nSeveral decisions support this conclusion. In Sampson v. United States, for example, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to order a new penalty-phase hearing in a death penalty case after a juror falsely denied, among other things, having been a victim of a crime. 724 F.3d at 154, 162. In fact, however, the juror repeatedly had been menaced by her husband with a shotgun. Id. at 168. But because the juror had not told the truth during voir dire, she was seated on a jury in a case involving a bank robbery in which the defendant threatened bank tellers at gunpoint. Id. \"These parallels,\" the Court said, \"raise a serious concern as to whether an ordinary person in [the juror's] shoes would be able to disregard her own experiences in evaluating the evidence.\" Id.\nTo be sure, the juror in Sampson did not limit her false answers to a single question. She also answered falsely to several other questions during voir dire, some material and some not. Id. at 162-63, 166. A combination of factors led the First Circuit to affirm the order for a new penalty-phase hearing. Id. at 168. Here, Juror No. 50's false",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12 Juror No. 50's confidence in his memory is not necessarily a predictor of the memory's reliability. As Dr. Loftus testified, \"when you have post-event suggestion or intervention, people get very confident about their wrong answers, and you can see that even wrong answers or false information, false memories can be expressed with a high degree of confidence.\" TR at 2430.",
+      "position": "footnote"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "33",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009041",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Loftus",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "First Circuit",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "724 F.3d",
+      "TR at 2427",
+      "TR at 2430",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009041"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009042.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "41",
+    "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 41 of 66\nanswers to Questions 25 and 48 are reason enough to order a new trial because they relate to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Moreover, if this Court orders an evidentiary hearing, it is likely additional false answers will come to light, further supporting the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nIn State v. Ashfar, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault based on the allegation that he touched the genitals of his 12-year-old client during a therapy session. 196 A.3d 93, 94 (N.H. 2018).13 The empaneled jury, however, included an individual who had been sexually assaulted by a babysitter when he was five or six years old. Id. at 95. The juror had not disclosed this during voir dire and had, instead, answered \"no\" when asked if \"[he] or a close member of your family or a close friend ever been a victim of a crime?\" Id. at 95. The trial court ordered a new trial, relying both on the juror's false answer during voir dire but also his post-verdict conduct, which included communications with a female victim of sexual assault who wrote a book on the subject and the juror's self-identification as \"an advocate for people.\" Id. at 96. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.\nThe decisions in Sampson and Ashfar support a new trial here. Like those cases, Juror No. 50 falsely denied having a personal experience strikingly similar to the conduct at issue in the criminal case. Juror No. 50's experience as a sexual assault victim \"raise[s]\n13 Because state courts are more often the venue for prosecution of crimes involving sexual assault, state court decisions are particularly helpful. The New Hampshire Supreme Court \"assum[ed] without deciding that McDonough provides the applicable analytical framework\" and concluded that the trial court \"sustainably exercised its discretion in finding the juror \"was not impartial.\" 196 A.3d at 97.",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 41 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "answers to Questions 25 and 48 are reason enough to order a new trial because they relate to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Moreover, if this Court orders an evidentiary hearing, it is likely additional false answers will come to light, further supporting the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.\nIn State v. Ashfar, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault based on the allegation that he touched the genitals of his 12-year-old client during a therapy session. 196 A.3d 93, 94 (N.H. 2018).13 The empaneled jury, however, included an individual who had been sexually assaulted by a babysitter when he was five or six years old. Id. at 95. The juror had not disclosed this during voir dire and had, instead, answered \"no\" when asked if \"[he] or a close member of your family or a close friend ever been a victim of a crime?\" Id. at 95. The trial court ordered a new trial, relying both on the juror's false answer during voir dire but also his post-verdict conduct, which included communications with a female victim of sexual assault who wrote a book on the subject and the juror's self-identification as \"an advocate for people.\" Id. at 96. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed.\nThe decisions in Sampson and Ashfar support a new trial here. Like those cases, Juror No. 50 falsely denied having a personal experience strikingly similar to the conduct at issue in the criminal case. Juror No. 50's experience as a sexual assault victim \"raise[s]",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13 Because state courts are more often the venue for prosecution of crimes involving sexual assault, state court decisions are particularly helpful. The New Hampshire Supreme Court \"assum[ed] without deciding that McDonough provides the applicable analytical framework\" and concluded that the trial court \"sustainably exercised its discretion in finding the juror \"was not impartial.\" 196 A.3d at 97.",
+      "position": "footnote"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "34",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009042",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Ashfar",
+      "McDonough"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "New Hampshire Supreme Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New Hampshire"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2018"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "196 A.3d 93",
+      "196 A.3d at 97",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009042"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the need for a new trial based on the false answers provided by a juror during voir dire. The document includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific court decisions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009043.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "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."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009044.json

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+{
+  "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."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009045.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "44",
+    "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 44 of 66\n\n2. Inferable bias\n\n\"'Inferable' or 'inferred' bias exists 'when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 474 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002)). A court should dismiss a potential juror for inferable bias \"after having received responses from the juror that permit an inference that the juror in question would not be able to decide the matter objectively.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 47. \"[T]his is so even though the juror need not be asked the specific question of whether he or she could decide the case impartially.\" Id.\n\n\"Moreover, once facts are elicited that permit a finding of inferable bias, then, just as in the situation of implied bias, the juror's statements as to his or her ability to be impartial become irrelevant.\" Id. \"The crux of the implied bias analysis in a case like this one is found in an examination of the similarities between the juror's experiences and the incident giving rise to the trial.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 48 (quoting Gonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978, 989 (10th Cir. 1996)). Assuming this Court does not imply bias, it should nevertheless infer bias.\n\nIn United States v. Torres, the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of a heroin trafficking scheme by structuring financial transactions. 128 F.3d at 41. Over the defense's objection, the district court (Judge Preska) dismissed for cause a potential juror who admitted that she \"had at one time engaged in the 'structuring' of cash transactions.\" Id. at 42. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the 37\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009045",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 44 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. Inferable bias",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"'Inferable' or 'inferred' bias exists 'when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias.'\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 474 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002)). A court should dismiss a potential juror for inferable bias \"after having received responses from the juror that permit an inference that the juror in question would not be able to decide the matter objectively.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 47. \"[T]his is so even though the juror need not be asked the specific question of whether he or she could decide the case impartially.\" Id.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Moreover, once facts are elicited that permit a finding of inferable bias, then, just as in the situation of implied bias, the juror's statements as to his or her ability to be impartial become irrelevant.\" Id. \"The crux of the implied bias analysis in a case like this one is found in an examination of the similarities between the juror's experiences and the incident giving rise to the trial.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 48 (quoting Gonzales v. Thomas, 99 F.3d 978, 989 (10th Cir. 1996)). Assuming this Court does not imply bias, it should nevertheless infer bias.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In United States v. Torres, the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of a heroin trafficking scheme by structuring financial transactions. 128 F.3d at 41. Over the defense's objection, the district court (Judge Preska) dismissed for cause a potential juror who admitted that she \"had at one time engaged in the 'structuring' of cash transactions.\" Id. at 42. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed, concluding that the",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "37",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009045",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Greer",
+      "Torres",
+      "Gonzales",
+      "Thomas",
+      "Preska"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Tenth Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2002",
+      "1996"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009045"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009046.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "45",
+    "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 45 of 66\ndistrict court did not err in inferring bias. Id. at 47-48. \"Given the similarity of Juror No. 7's structuring activity to the conduct alleged against appellant Devery in this case, it was reasonable for Judge Preska to conclude that the average person in Juror No. 7's position might have felt personally threatened.\" Id. at 48. Although the Court in Torres declined to define the \"precise scope of a trial judge's discretion to infer bias,\" Judge Calabresi further explained:\n\nIt is enough for the present to note that cases in which a juror has engaged in activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial are particularly apt. The exercise of the trial judge's discretion to grant challenges for cause on the basis of inferred bias is especially appropriate in such situations.\n\nId. at 47 (emphasis added).\n\nJust as it is \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has engaged in \"activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial,\" so too is it \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has been subject to conduct \"that closely approximate[d] [that] of the defendant on trial.\" See id. In such a case, there is just too great a risk that such a juror will not be able to decide the case purely based on the applicable law and the evidence or lack of evidence, even though that inability may be unconscious. This is one such case.\n\n3. Actual bias\n\n\"Actual bias is 'bias in fact'—the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 (citing United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936)). \"A juror is found by the judge to be partial either because the juror admits partiality, or the judge finds actual partiality",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 45 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "district court did not err in inferring bias. Id. at 47-48. \"Given the similarity of Juror No. 7's structuring activity to the conduct alleged against appellant Devery in this case, it was reasonable for Judge Preska to conclude that the average person in Juror No. 7's position might have felt personally threatened.\" Id. at 48. Although the Court in Torres declined to define the \"precise scope of a trial judge's discretion to infer bias,\" Judge Calabresi further explained:",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is enough for the present to note that cases in which a juror has engaged in activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial are particularly apt. The exercise of the trial judge's discretion to grant challenges for cause on the basis of inferred bias is especially appropriate in such situations.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Id. at 47 (emphasis added).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Just as it is \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has engaged in \"activities that closely approximate those of the defendant on trial,\" so too is it \"especially appropriate\" for a court to infer bias when a potential juror has been subject to conduct \"that closely approximate[d] [that] of the defendant on trial.\" See id. In such a case, there is just too great a risk that such a juror will not be able to decide the case purely based on the applicable law and the evidence or lack of evidence, even though that inability may be unconscious. This is one such case.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. Actual bias",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Actual bias is 'bias in fact'—the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality.\" Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 (citing United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936)). \"A juror is found by the judge to be partial either because the juror admits partiality, or the judge finds actual partiality",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "38",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009046",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Devery",
+      "Judge Preska",
+      "Judge Calabresi"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1936"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "299 U.S. 123",
+      "128 F.3d",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009046"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the concept of bias in jurors and the discretion of trial judges to infer bias. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009047.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "46",
+    "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 46 of 66\nbased upon the juror's voir dire answers.\" Id. (citing United States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) (actual bias is \"based upon express proof, e.g., by a voir dire admission by the prospective juror of a state of mind prejudicial to a party's interest\"); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (plurality opinion) (\"Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court's instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled.\"))\nThis Court need not decide whether Juror No. 50 was actually biased, since this Court can and should imply and infer bias. Assuming this Court holds an evidentiary hearing at which Juror No. 50 is compelled to give truthful answers to the questions he would have been asked if he had not falsely responded to the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to argue that Juror No. 50 was actually biased.\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false.\nMs. Maxwell does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's voir dire answers were intentionally false. As explained above, she need only prove \"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. Nevertheless, assuming this Court concludes that Ms. Maxwell must prove Juror No. 50 intentionally misled the Court in falsely answering Questions 25 and 48, Ms. Maxwell has easily met that burden.\nThere are at least six reasons to believe Juror No. 50 acted intentionally. First, this Court need only watch the video of Juror No. 50 being confronted with his false answers to appreciate that he acted intentionally. Juror No. 50's face immediately flushed and\n39\nDOJ-OGR-00009047",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 46 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "based upon the juror's voir dire answers.\" Id. (citing United States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) (actual bias is \"based upon express proof, e.g., by a voir dire admission by the prospective juror of a state of mind prejudicial to a party's interest\"); Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (plurality opinion) (\"Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court's instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled.\"))\nThis Court need not decide whether Juror No. 50 was actually biased, since this Court can and should imply and infer bias. Assuming this Court holds an evidentiary hearing at which Juror No. 50 is compelled to give truthful answers to the questions he would have been asked if he had not falsely responded to the questionnaire, Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to argue that Juror No. 50 was actually biased.\nC. Juror No. 50's answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false.\nMs. Maxwell does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's voir dire answers were intentionally false. As explained above, she need only prove \"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. Nevertheless, assuming this Court concludes that Ms. Maxwell must prove Juror No. 50 intentionally misled the Court in falsely answering Questions 25 and 48, Ms. Maxwell has easily met that burden.\nThere are at least six reasons to believe Juror No. 50 acted intentionally. First, this Court need only watch the video of Juror No. 50 being confronted with his false answers to appreciate that he acted intentionally. Juror No. 50's face immediately flushed and",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "39",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009047",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Supreme Court",
+      "2d Cir."
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1968",
+      "1981"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "398 F.2d 980",
+      "451 U.S. 182",
+      "433 F.3d at 303",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009047"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the issue of juror bias and the implications of a juror providing false answers during voir dire. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal references."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009048.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "47",
+    "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 47 of 66\nturned red, and he grasped for words when the Daily Mail reporter told him about\nQuestion 48. \"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 said, struggling for an explanation. Unable to\ncredibly explain away his false answer, Juror No. 50 eventually put together a\nnonsensical response: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I\nhonestly—that's why I answered it that way.\"\nSecond, Juror No. 50's attempt to justify his false answer by claiming he \"flew\nthrough\" the questionnaire is not worthy of belief. The questionnaire instructed potential\njurors to \"carefully\" compete it. No time limitation was imposed for completion of the\nquestionnaire. It emphasized that only the parties and the Court would know the identities\nof the jurors. It advised that there are no \"right or wrong\" answers, \"only truthful\nanswers.\" And it assured jurors that their privacy would be respected and that if an\nanswer to any question was embarrassing or caused the juror particular concern, they\ncould alert the Court. The Court must presume Juror No. 50 heeded these instructions.\nIndeed, there is compelling evidence that Juror No. 50 carefully followed these\ninstructions and did not \"fly through\" the questionnaire, as he now claims.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThird, it is simply not credible that Juror No. 50\n\n40\nDOJ-OGR-00009048",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 47 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "turned red, and he grasped for words when the Daily Mail reporter told him about\nQuestion 48. \"Interesting,\" Juror No. 50 said, struggling for an explanation. Unable to\ncredibly explain away his false answer, Juror No. 50 eventually put together a\nnonsensical response: \"No, No! I know my face is red because I can feel the blood but, I\nhonestly—that's why I answered it that way.\"\nSecond, Juror No. 50's attempt to justify his false answer by claiming he \"flew\nthrough\" the questionnaire is not worthy of belief. The questionnaire instructed potential\njurors to \"carefully\" compete it. No time limitation was imposed for completion of the\nquestionnaire. It emphasized that only the parties and the Court would know the identities\nof the jurors. It advised that there are no \"right or wrong\" answers, \"only truthful\nanswers.\" And it assured jurors that their privacy would be respected and that if an\nanswer to any question was embarrassing or caused the juror particular concern, they\ncould alert the Court. The Court must presume Juror No. 50 heeded these instructions.\nIndeed, there is compelling evidence that Juror No. 50 carefully followed these\ninstructions and did not \"fly through\" the questionnaire, as he now claims.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Third, it is simply not credible that Juror No. 50",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "40",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009048",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Daily Mail",
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009048"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly clear, but some parts are blacked out."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009049.json

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "48",
+    "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 48 of 66 Ex. 1, p 3 (\"The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge.\") The questionnaire also told potential jurors that it would ask personal questions. Id. (\"Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experience to select a fair and impartial jury.\") Fourth, Juror No. 50's post-verdict conduct shows his false answers to the questionnaire were intentional. Juror No. 50 went on a media press to promote himself, his experience as a victim, and his role on the jury. He has given multiple interviews to 41 DOJ-OGR-00009049",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 48 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ex. 1, p 3 (\"The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge.\") The questionnaire also told potential jurors that it would ask personal questions. Id. (\"Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experience to select a fair and impartial jury.\") Fourth, Juror No. 50's post-verdict conduct shows his false answers to the questionnaire were intentional. Juror No. 50 went on a media press to promote himself, his experience as a victim, and his role on the jury. He has given multiple interviews to",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "41",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009049",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009049"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly clear, but some parts are blacked out."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009050.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "49",
+    "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 49 of 66\n\nseveral different news outlets (some of which he was likely paid for)14, and he sat for an interview as part of an hour-long \"documentary\" called \"Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile,\" which aired on the British channel ITV. He has engaged on Twitter with the journalist who wrote about him, and he has communicated directly with Annie Farmer. See Ashfar, 196 A.3d at 95-96 (relying on juror's post-trial conduct as a basis for concluding juror was biased and new trial was required because juror falsely answered material question during voir dire). Juror No. 50's publicity tour appears to have stopped (at least temporarily) only because the government publicly filed a letter asking this Court to inquire into Juror No. 50's truthfulness and suggesting that he needed a lawyer.\n\nThe clear message from the government to Juror No. 50 was to stop talking.15\n\n14 It is common for the British press to pay for crime victims' stories. See, e.g. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sell-my-story/; https://trianglenews.co.uk/sell-my-story-to-the-daily-mail/; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus/index.html\n\n15 Juror No. 50 was clearly enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame in early January 2022, giving multiple interviews in which he congratulated himself as the person who persuaded the other jurors to adopt his biased view of the evidence and to vote to convict Ms. Maxwell.\n\nThe government recognized that Juror No. 50 had dug a very deep hole—a hole that looked to be getting deeper. Without conferring as to either the submission of the letter or any redactions, the government publicly filed Docket No. 568. This letter communicated to Juror No. 50, and the media, that Juror No. 50 had done something wrong, that his conduct would be subject to scrutiny, and that the conduct was serious enough to warrant appointment of a lawyer, free of charge if necessary.\n\nHad Ms. Maxwell been asked, she would have objected to the public filing of this letter, which caused Juror No. 50 to delete his social media accounts and alerted Juror No. 50 that he needed to stop giving media presentations and to work on his story.\n\nThe government knows how to file a letter under seal, and this Court's protocol throughout this case has been for the parties to file letters or pleadings under restriction with a conferral and briefing as to what portion of the document should be redacted. The\n\n42\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009050",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 49 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "several different news outlets (some of which he was likely paid for)14, and he sat for an interview as part of an hour-long \"documentary\" called \"Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile,\" which aired on the British channel ITV. He has engaged on Twitter with the journalist who wrote about him, and he has communicated directly with Annie Farmer. See Ashfar, 196 A.3d at 95-96 (relying on juror's post-trial conduct as a basis for concluding juror was biased and new trial was required because juror falsely answered material question during voir dire). Juror No. 50's publicity tour appears to have stopped (at least temporarily) only because the government publicly filed a letter asking this Court to inquire into Juror No. 50's truthfulness and suggesting that he needed a lawyer.\n\nThe clear message from the government to Juror No. 50 was to stop talking.15",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "14 It is common for the British press to pay for crime victims' stories. See, e.g. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sell-my-story/; https://trianglenews.co.uk/sell-my-story-to-the-daily-mail/; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus/index.html",
+      "position": "footnote"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15 Juror No. 50 was clearly enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame in early January 2022, giving multiple interviews in which he congratulated himself as the person who persuaded the other jurors to adopt his biased view of the evidence and to vote to convict Ms. Maxwell.",
+      "position": "footnote"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government recognized that Juror No. 50 had dug a very deep hole—a hole that looked to be getting deeper. Without conferring as to either the submission of the letter or any redactions, the government publicly filed Docket No. 568. This letter communicated to Juror No. 50, and the media, that Juror No. 50 had done something wrong, that his conduct would be subject to scrutiny, and that the conduct was serious enough to warrant appointment of a lawyer, free of charge if necessary.",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Had Ms. Maxwell been asked, she would have objected to the public filing of this letter, which caused Juror No. 50 to delete his social media accounts and alerted Juror No. 50 that he needed to stop giving media presentations and to work on his story.",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government knows how to file a letter under seal, and this Court's protocol throughout this case has been for the parties to file letters or pleadings under restriction with a conferral and briefing as to what portion of the document should be redacted. The",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "42",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009050",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine",
+      "Prince Andrew",
+      "Annie Farmer",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "ITV",
+      "British press",
+      "Daily Mail",
+      "Mirror"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "January 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Docket No. 568",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009050"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the conduct of Juror No. 50 and the government's actions regarding his public statements."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009051.json

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "50",
+    "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 50 of 66\n\nFifth, Juror No. 50's false answer to question 48 was not a one-off mistake. He also falsely answered question 25.\n\n\n\nFinally, this case is not like other cases in which a juror may have given a false answer to avoid embarrassment. Juror No. 50 has spoken to numerous media outlets about his service as a juror, has freely admitted that he is the victim of sexual abuse and sexual assault, and has done the bare minimum to conceal his identity, allowing himself to be identified by his first name while posing for pictures and being video recorded. Juror No. 50 has not shunned the limelight. He has reveled in it.\n\nD. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false.\n\nRegardless of whether Juror No. 50's answers were intentional lies or inadvertent misstatements, his false answers to Questions 25 and 48\n\n\n\nAt the October 21 hearing, this Court emphasized the importance of voir dire, and it expressed confidence that it could \"smoke out\" jurors who did not tell the truth:\n\n\nletter was written by the government with full knowledge that it would be published by the media and effectively silence Juror No. 50. The submission of the letter was an end run around this Court's orders regarding Local Rule 23.1 and Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.\n\n43\nDOJ-OGR-00009051",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 50 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fifth, Juror No. 50's false answer to question 48 was not a one-off mistake. He also falsely answered question 25.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, this case is not like other cases in which a juror may have given a false answer to avoid embarrassment. Juror No. 50 has spoken to numerous media outlets about his service as a juror, has freely admitted that he is the victim of sexual abuse and sexual assault, and has done the bare minimum to conceal his identity, allowing himself to be identified by his first name while posing for pictures and being video recorded. Juror No. 50 has not shunned the limelight. He has reveled in it.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "D. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Regardless of whether Juror No. 50's answers were intentional lies or inadvertent misstatements, his false answers to Questions 25 and 48",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "At the October 21 hearing, this Court emphasized the importance of voir dire, and it expressed confidence that it could \"smoke out\" jurors who did not tell the truth:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "letter was written by the government with full knowledge that it would be published by the media and effectively silence Juror No. 50. The submission of the letter was an end run around this Court's orders regarding Local Rule 23.1 and Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "43",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009051",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "October 21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "50",
+      "25",
+      "48",
+      "23.1",
+      "3.6",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009051"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a court case with the number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, and it is page 50 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009052.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "51",
+    "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 51 of 66\n\nI will individually, one-on-one, question[] the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be a summary voir dire; it will be probing. . . . If a juror's going to lie and be dishonest, we will smoke that out.\n\nTR 10/21/2021, p 25-26. Because Juror No. 50 did not honestly answer these material questions, however, the Court and the defense were not alerted to probe these issues and instead relied on Juror No. 50's claim that he could be fair and impartial. In hindsight, that claim is not credible.\n\nThis is not speculation. Rather, based on what Juror No. 50 has said to the media, it's clear he was not fair and impartial because his personal experiences \"prevent[ed] or substantially impair[ed] the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.\" Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424. If Juror No. 50 had truthfully disclosed that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child, the Court and parties would have probed, among other things, whether he was able (1) to assess the credibility of alleged sex assault victim like all other witnesses; (2) to fairly evaluate the testimony of Dr. Loftus; (3) to impartially assess Ms. Maxwell's defense that her accusers' memories were unreliable and tainted by money and manipulation; and (4) set aside his own traumatic experience when evaluating whether the government met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nJuror No. 50's failure to disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse (Question 48) was further compounded by his failure to disclose that he was merely a victim of a crime (Question 25). Disclosing that he was a crime victim would have invited inquiry by counsel and the Court regarding the nature of the crime and would have provided a\n\n44\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009052",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 51 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I will individually, one-on-one, question[] the jurors, and with the parties present, I feel confident that I can discern any clear dishonesty. This is not just going to be a summary voir dire; it will be probing. . . . If a juror's going to lie and be dishonest, we will smoke that out.\n\nTR 10/21/2021, p 25-26. Because Juror No. 50 did not honestly answer these material questions, however, the Court and the defense were not alerted to probe these issues and instead relied on Juror No. 50's claim that he could be fair and impartial. In hindsight, that claim is not credible.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This is not speculation. Rather, based on what Juror No. 50 has said to the media, it's clear he was not fair and impartial because his personal experiences \"prevent[ed] or substantially impair[ed] the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.\" Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424. If Juror No. 50 had truthfully disclosed that he was a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse as a child, the Court and parties would have probed, among other things, whether he was able (1) to assess the credibility of alleged sex assault victim like all other witnesses; (2) to fairly evaluate the testimony of Dr. Loftus; (3) to impartially assess Ms. Maxwell's defense that her accusers' memories were unreliable and tainted by money and manipulation; and (4) set aside his own traumatic experience when evaluating whether the government met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50's failure to disclose that he was a victim of sexual abuse (Question 48) was further compounded by his failure to disclose that he was merely a victim of a crime (Question 25). Disclosing that he was a crime victim would have invited inquiry by counsel and the Court regarding the nature of the crime and would have provided a",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "44",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009052",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Loftus",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "10/21/2021",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Question 48",
+      "Question 25",
+      "Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009052"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal filing related to a criminal case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the voir dire process and the potential bias of a juror (Juror No. 50) who failed to disclose their history of sexual abuse. The document includes references to specific court documents and legal precedents."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009053.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "52",
+    "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 52 of 66 basis for a cause challenge or a peremptory challenge. Juror No. 50's false answers to both questions deprived the Court of any basis for any meaningful inquiry on a topic bearing directly on his ability to serve impartially and the basis for a cause challenge. Truthful answers from Juror No. 50 would have led the Court and the parties to probe much more deeply into his biases and prejudices, both known and unknown.17 Had that happened, the record shows that he would have been removed as a potential juror. 16 Juror No. 50 continues his media exploits despite being the subject of this Motion and represented by counsel. On January 18, 2022, he appeared in a documentary produced by ITV. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvnwRuDfrdM at timestamps 01:53, 02:32, 04:10, 05:10, 34:36, 38:41, 39:15. 17 This follow-up questioning would not have been a mere formality. 45 DOJ-OGR-00009053",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 52 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "basis for a cause challenge or a peremptory challenge. Juror No. 50's false answers to both questions deprived the Court of any basis for any meaningful inquiry on a topic bearing directly on his ability to serve impartially and the basis for a cause challenge.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Truthful answers from Juror No. 50 would have led the Court and the parties to probe much more deeply into his biases and prejudices, both known and unknown.17 Had that happened, the record shows that he would have been removed as a potential juror.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16 Juror No. 50 continues his media exploits despite being the subject of this Motion and represented by counsel. On January 18, 2022, he appeared in a documentary produced by ITV. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvnwRuDfrdM at timestamps 01:53, 02:32, 04:10, 05:10, 34:36, 38:41, 39:15.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17 This follow-up questioning would not have been a mere formality.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "45",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009053",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "ITV",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "January 18, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009053"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a URL. The document is from a court case with the number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009054.json

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "53",
+    "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 53 of 66\n\nE. Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial.\n\nProper voir dire plays a vital role in assuring a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled.\n\n\"Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.\" Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (citation omitted).\n\nThe role of peremptory challenges in a criminal trial cannot be overstated:\n\nPeremptory challenges have been an integral aspect of criminal trial procedure for over six hundred years and continue to be universally employed throughout the country. The underlying thesis is that, with the exception of challenges for cause, the suitability of a particular juror is counsel's decision and not the court's. Consistent with that thesis and subject to constitutional strictures, a peremptory challenge can rest on a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.\n\nState v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019 (App. Div. 1994) (cleaned up).\n\nFed. R. Crim. P. 24 entitles a number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Here, Ms. Maxwell exercised all of her peremptory challenges and, whether for cause or peremptory, would not have knowing allowed a juror who: (1) claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse; or (2) neglected to disclose that the juror had been a victim of sexual abuse; (3) [redacted]. Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors.\n\n46\nDOJ-OGR-00009054",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 53 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "E. Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Proper voir dire plays a vital role in assuring a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.\" Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (citation omitted).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The role of peremptory challenges in a criminal trial cannot be overstated:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Peremptory challenges have been an integral aspect of criminal trial procedure for over six hundred years and continue to be universally employed throughout the country. The underlying thesis is that, with the exception of challenges for cause, the suitability of a particular juror is counsel's decision and not the court's. Consistent with that thesis and subject to constitutional strictures, a peremptory challenge can rest on a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019 (App. Div. 1994) (cleaned up).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fed. R. Crim. P. 24 entitles a number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Here, Ms. Maxwell exercised all of her peremptory challenges and, whether for cause or peremptory, would not have knowing allowed a juror who: (1) claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse; or (2) neglected to disclose that the juror had been a victim of sexual abuse; (3) [redacted]. Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "46",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009054",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New Jersey"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "1981",
+      "1994"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "451 U.S. 182",
+      "278 N.J. Super. 249",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009054"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the importance of proper voir dire and peremptory challenges in ensuring a fair trial. There is a redacted section on page 53."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009055.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "54",
+    "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 54 of 66\n\nAs discussed in Murphy v. Nogam, No. CV 14-4268 (KM), 2018 WL 278735, at *25 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2018), aff'd sub nom. Murphy v. Adm'r E. Jersey State Prison, No. 18-2825, 2021 WL 2822179 (3d Cir. July 7, 2021), New Jersey courts have repeatedly invalidated judgments where a juror's inaccurate answer to a question propounded in the jury voir dire precluded a litigant from exercising a peremptory challenge. State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263 (App.Div.1994), cert. denied, 140 N.J. 276 (1995) (citing Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957); State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976)).\n\nOf course, the material omissions by Juror 50 were not made in New Jersey. The prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and the concept of fundamental fairness, however, are the same regardless of which side of the Hudson the misstatements occurred. In a very close, contested trial where the only real issue was the credibility of the accusers, the failure of Juror 50 to disclose his claimed victim status in jury selection cheated Ms. Maxwell of her ability to intelligently exercise her peremptory challenges and robbed her of a fair trial. In this case truthful responses would have revealed Juror 50's claimed victim status. He would have been excused for cause on that basis alone and would never answered any questions in person.\n\nEven if Juror 50 had claimed on the questionnaire that he could be fair, despite his victim status, the result would have been the same. He would have been asked to describe to the Court and the parties, under oath, what he claimed happened to him, when it happened, the impact on him, and how he could still be fair. Had Juror 50 revealed to the Court, as he did to the media, that he believed that his memory \"was like a video\" and that he would advocate that the alleged victims here were credible, based on his own\n\n47\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009055",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 54 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As discussed in Murphy v. Nogam, No. CV 14-4268 (KM), 2018 WL 278735, at *25 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2018), aff'd sub nom. Murphy v. Adm'r E. Jersey State Prison, No. 18-2825, 2021 WL 2822179 (3d Cir. July 7, 2021), New Jersey courts have repeatedly invalidated judgments where a juror's inaccurate answer to a question propounded in the jury voir dire precluded a litigant from exercising a peremptory challenge. State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263 (App.Div.1994), cert. denied, 140 N.J. 276 (1995) (citing Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957); State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976)).",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Of course, the material omissions by Juror 50 were not made in New Jersey. The prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and the concept of fundamental fairness, however, are the same regardless of which side of the Hudson the misstatements occurred. In a very close, contested trial where the only real issue was the credibility of the accusers, the failure of Juror 50 to disclose his claimed victim status in jury selection cheated Ms. Maxwell of her ability to intelligently exercise her peremptory challenges and robbed her of a fair trial. In this case truthful responses would have revealed Juror 50's claimed victim status. He would have been excused for cause on that basis alone and would never answered any questions in person.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Even if Juror 50 had claimed on the questionnaire that he could be fair, despite his victim status, the result would have been the same. He would have been asked to describe to the Court and the parties, under oath, what he claimed happened to him, when it happened, the impact on him, and how he could still be fair. Had Juror 50 revealed to the Court, as he did to the media, that he believed that his memory \"was like a video\" and that he would advocate that the alleged victims here were credible, based on his own",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "47",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009055",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New Jersey",
+      "Hudson"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "Jan. 3, 2018",
+      "July 7, 2021",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "CV 14-4268 (KM)",
+      "No. 18-2825",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009055"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing a legal case involving Ms. Maxwell and Juror 50. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 54 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009056.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "55",
+    "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 55 of 66\nexperiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike.\n\nII. The scope of any evidentiary hearing\n\nMs. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate.\n\nWhen, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, \"an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.\" United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). \"[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.\" United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021).\n\nA. Pre-hearing discovery\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to:\n\n1. Juror No. 50 to produce:\n\na. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case;\n\nb. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case;\n\n48\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009056",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 55 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "experiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "II. The scope of any evidentiary hearing\n\nMs. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "When, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, \"an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.\" United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). \"[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.\" United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. Pre-hearing discovery\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to:\n\n1. Juror No. 50 to produce:\n\na. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case;\n\nb. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case;",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "48",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009056",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2018",
+      "2020",
+      "2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "904 F.3d 111",
+      "977 F.3d 114",
+      "141 S. Ct. 2601",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009056"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009057.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "56",
+    "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 56 of 66\n\nc. Non-privileged emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other person, including any news or media organization about Juror No. 50's service as a juror in this case;\n\nd. Any record of payments to Juror No. 50 in exchange for any interview or information about his service as a juror in this case;\n\n2. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, or other social media networking platforms identified by the parties, to produce:\n\na. All communications to and from Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case;\n\nb. All posts, comments, or photographs posted by Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case.\n\nc. All documents reflecting dates on which Juror No. 50 opened or closed his accounts.\n\nB. The hearing itself\n\nThe misconduct identified potentially implicates all 12 jurors who rendered a verdict here. According to Juror No. 50 and the New York Times, one other juror did not disclose that he or she was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Nevertheless, that juror's experiences were discussed apparently in support of Juror No. 50's position. What these two jurors disclosed to the (presumably) ten jurors who responded to the questionnaire truthfully will be relevant to determine the identity of the second juror and what Juror No. 50 said to the other jurors.\n\n49\nDOJ-OGR-00009057",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 56 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "c. Non-privileged emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other person, including any news or media organization about Juror No. 50's service as a juror in this case;\nd. Any record of payments to Juror No. 50 in exchange for any interview or information about his service as a juror in this case;\n2. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, or other social media networking platforms identified by the parties, to produce:\na. All communications to and from Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case;\nb. All posts, comments, or photographs posted by Juror No. 50 regarding his service as a juror in this case.\nc. All documents reflecting dates on which Juror No. 50 opened or closed his accounts.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. The hearing itself",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The misconduct identified potentially implicates all 12 jurors who rendered a verdict here. According to Juror No. 50 and the New York Times, one other juror did not disclose that he or she was the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Nevertheless, that juror's experiences were discussed apparently in support of Juror No. 50's position. What these two jurors disclosed to the (presumably) ten jurors who responded to the questionnaire truthfully will be relevant to determine the identity of the second juror and what Juror No. 50 said to the other jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "49",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009057",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "New York Times"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009057"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing juror misconduct and the need for further investigation."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009058.json

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "57",
+    "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 57 of 66\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that any hearing begin with the questioning of Juror No. 50.\n\nMs. Maxwell requests that the Court first advise Juror No. 50 about the nature of the hearing and then allow defense counsel to question Juror No. 50 followed by questioning from the government, re-cross examination by defense counsel, followed by any questions from the Court and any additional questions from counsel based on the Court's questions.\n\nIf, after this examination further inquiry is required, Ms. Maxwell suggests that the second juror be summoned to Court for an identical process. If necessary, this process should be repeated as to all remaining jurors.\n\nAfter the examination of the jurors the parties should be afforded a period of time to conduct any further investigation warranted by the information presented at the hearing followed by post-hearing arguments, either oral or written.\n\nFederal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry, because Ms. Maxwell does not seek to impeach the verdict based on the content of deliberations. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (providing that, with certain exceptions, \"a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations\" during \"an inquiry into the validity of a verdict\"). Instead, she intends to show that her jury was not fair and impartial as required by the Sixth Amendment because at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire to material questions that, if answered truthfully, would have subject them to a challenge for cause.\n\nTo the extent Rule 606 might apply to certain questions asked at the hearing, Ms. Maxwell need not inquire into the content of deliberations to establish her jury bias\n\n50\nDOJ-OGR-00009058",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 57 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell requests that any hearing begin with the questioning of Juror No. 50.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court first advise Juror No. 50 about the nature of the hearing and then allow defense counsel to question Juror No. 50 followed by questioning from the government, re-cross examination by defense counsel, followed by any questions from the Court and any additional questions from counsel based on the Court's questions.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "If, after this examination further inquiry is required, Ms. Maxwell suggests that the second juror be summoned to Court for an identical process. If necessary, this process should be repeated as to all remaining jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "After the examination of the jurors the parties should be afforded a period of time to conduct any further investigation warranted by the information presented at the hearing followed by post-hearing arguments, either oral or written.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry, because Ms. Maxwell does not seek to impeach the verdict based on the content of deliberations. Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) (providing that, with certain exceptions, \"a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations\" during \"an inquiry into the validity of a verdict\"). Instead, she intends to show that her jury was not fair and impartial as required by the Sixth Amendment because at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire to material questions that, if answered truthfully, would have subject them to a challenge for cause.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "To the extent Rule 606 might apply to certain questions asked at the hearing, Ms. Maxwell need not inquire into the content of deliberations to establish her jury bias",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009058",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009058"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 57 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009059.json

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "58",
+    "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 58 of 66\nclaim. See Cunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594, at *14-15 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022) (granting habeas relief as to juror bias claim because it is \"possible for Cunningham to prove that [the juror] was actually biased without relying on juror testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)\"); compare Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (\"Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.\") Without relying on juror testimony, it is already clear that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer the questionnaire; Juror No. 50 has publicly admitted he is a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse.\nAs for identifying the other juror who was also a victim of sexual assault and abuse, the Court and parties can identify the juror without eliciting testimony about what was said during deliberations. The remaining eleven jurors can be asked, under oath, whether their answer to question 48 is correct and whether they have been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Presumably the second juror will self-identify.\nIII. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene.\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing.\nJuror No. 50 seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8. This claim is not supported by \"the long line of precedent hold[ing] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695\n51\nDOJ-OGR-00009059",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 58 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "claim. See Cunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594, at *14-15 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022) (granting habeas relief as to juror bias claim because it is \"possible for Cunningham to prove that [the juror] was actually biased without relying on juror testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)\"); compare Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (\"Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.\") Without relying on juror testimony, it is already clear that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer the questionnaire; Juror No. 50 has publicly admitted he is a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As for identifying the other juror who was also a victim of sexual assault and abuse, the Court and parties can identify the juror without eliciting testimony about what was said during deliberations. The remaining eleven jurors can be asked, under oath, whether their answer to question 48 is correct and whether they have been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Presumably the second juror will self-identify.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "III. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene.\nA. Juror No. 50 lacks standing.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 seeks to intervene suggesting that \"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....\" Memo. at 8. This claim is not supported by \"the long line of precedent hold[ing] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant's prosecution.\" United States v. Stoerr, 695",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "51",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009059",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Cunningham",
+      "Shoop",
+      "Pena-Rodriguez",
+      "Stoerr"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "Sixth Amendment"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "Jan. 10, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "11-3005/20-3429",
+      "2022 WL 92594",
+      "137 S. Ct. 855",
+      "695",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009059"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten annotations or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009060.json

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "59",
+    "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 59 of 66\n\nF.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).\n\nB. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation.\n\nIt is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here. Like many suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has\n\n52\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009060",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 59 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2012). Juror No. 50 is not a party here and there is no legal basis for Juror No. 50 to intervene in this matter. This is not a request by a journalist to intervene for public access. See United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 81 (2d Cir. 2008) (motion to intervene to assert the public's First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is proper). Nor is the request from a subpoena respondent. See United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1979) (persons affected by the disclosure of allegedly privileged materials may intervene in pending criminal proceedings and seek protective orders). Although Juror No. 50 has expressed a questionable interest in the outcome of this case, that does not afford him standing to intervene. Notably, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure make no reference to a motion to intervene in a criminal case. This is a recognition of the general rule that \"a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.\" Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). And as one court has noted, \"[e]ven crime victims, who enjoy various statutory rights of participation, have no right to intervene in the district court in a criminal case.\" United States v. Collins, 2013 WL 4780927, at *1 (E.D. Wis. 2013).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50's discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is the conduct of Juror No. 50 that is under investigation here. Like many suspects, Juror No. 50 would like to learn as much information about the investigation so that he can tailor responses to any potential questions and change the focus of the investigation. Once he was thoroughly tipped off by the government, Juror No. 50 has",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "52",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009060",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Juror No. 50",
+      "Aref",
+      "Linda R.S.",
+      "Richard D."
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "E.D. Wis"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2012",
+      "2008",
+      "1979",
+      "1973",
+      "2013"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "F.3d 271",
+      "533 F.3d 72",
+      "599 F.2d 1183",
+      "410 U.S. 614",
+      "2013 WL 4780927",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009060"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the issue of a juror's request to intervene and access certain information. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009061.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "60 of 66",
+    "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 60 of 66\nsought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence, and tried to flee from the media.\nUnder analogous circumstances courts have refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation. See John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, (1989) (recipient of a grand jury subpoena for certain records relating to a cost allocation appropriately denied access to records pursuant to a FOIA request).\nAny advance disclosure to Juror No. 50 of the questionnaire will undoubtably color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture. Although there may come a time when Juror No. 50 is entitled to this discovery-if he is charged with perjury, criminal contempt, or some other crime, for example-the time is not now.\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal.\nWhether a claimant has standing is \"the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\" In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387-88 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, (1975)). Striking the pleading of a putative litigant is appropriate where the litigant lacks standing. United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC, 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011). A stricken pleading is a nullity with no legal effect. Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) (stricken amended complaint deemed a nullity and of\n53\nDOJ-OGR-00009061",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 60 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "sought to distance himself from his original statements, attempted to destroy evidence, and tried to flee from the media.\nUnder analogous circumstances courts have refused discovery to individuals or entities under investigation. See John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146, (1989) (recipient of a grand jury subpoena for certain records relating to a cost allocation appropriately denied access to records pursuant to a FOIA request).\nAny advance disclosure to Juror No. 50 of the questionnaire will undoubtably color Juror No. 50's testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture. Although there may come a time when Juror No. 50 is entitled to this discovery-if he is charged with perjury, criminal contempt, or some other crime, for example-the time is not now.\nC. Juror No. 50's filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal.\nWhether a claimant has standing is \"the threshold question in every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.\" In re Gucci, 126 F.3d 380, 387-88 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, (1975)). Striking the pleading of a putative litigant is appropriate where the litigant lacks standing. United States v. All Right, Title & Int. in Prop., Appurtenances, & Improvements Known as 479 Tamarind Drive, Hallendale, Fla., No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC, 2011 WL 1045095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2011). A stricken pleading is a nullity with no legal effect. Davis v. Bombardier Recreational Prod., Inc., No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP, 2012 WL 112202, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2012) (stricken amended complaint deemed a nullity and of",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "53",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009061",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "Hallendale, Fla.",
+      "S.D.N.Y.",
+      "S.D. Miss."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "Mar. 11, 2011",
+      "Jan. 12, 2012",
+      "1975",
+      "1989"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "493 U.S. 146",
+      "126 F.3d 380",
+      "422 U.S. 490",
+      "No. 98 CIV. 2279 DLC",
+      "No. 3:11CV236-TSL-MTP",
+      "2011 WL 1045095",
+      "2012 WL 112202"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 60 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009062.json

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "61",
+    "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 61 of 66\n\nno legal effect). Although Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure references \"pleadings,\" \"a district court has the inherent power to strike a party's submissions other than pleadings.\" Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010); see also Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (motion to strike granted and motion in opposition not considered by the court). This Court should strike all the filings made by Juror No. 50.\n\nAlternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").\n\nThe fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to\n\n54\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009062",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 61 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "no legal effect). Although Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure references \"pleadings,\" \"a district court has the inherent power to strike a party's submissions other than pleadings.\" Mazzeo v. Gibbons, No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA, 2010 WL 3910072, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2010); see also Metzger v. Hussman, 682 F. Supp. 1109, 1110 (D. Nev. 1988) (motion to strike granted and motion in opposition not considered by the court). This Court should strike all the filings made by Juror No. 50.",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Alternatively, Ms. Maxwell requests that the \"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Intervene and for Release of Sealed Jury Questionnaire and Transcript, on Behalf of Proposed Intervenor, Juror 50\" and its companion Motion remain under seal, at least until a resolution of Ms. Maxwell's motion for new trial based on this Juror's failure to answer truthfully during jury selection. Juror No. 50's Motion and accompanying Memorandum are an attempt to obtain discovery by a non-party to this criminal case, made by someone who lacks standing to participate in this prosecution. Accordingly, these pleadings are not \"judicial documents\" and are afforded no presumption of public access. United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506, 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (\"experience and logic show that there is no right of access to discovery materials\"). See SEC v. The Street.Com, 273 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir.2001) (rejecting claim that deposition testimony became a \"judicial document\" \"because the Court reviewed it in order to decide whether or not to enter [a] protective order\").",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The fact that Juror No. 50 filed these pleadings does not make them \"judicial documents.\" United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (\"We think that the mere filing of a paper or document with the court is insufficient to",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "54",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009062",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Mazzeo",
+      "Gibbons",
+      "Metzger",
+      "Hussman",
+      "Smith",
+      "Amodeo"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "SEC"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Nevada",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "Sept. 30, 2010",
+      "1988",
+      "2013",
+      "2001",
+      "1995"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "No. 2:08-CV-01387-RLH-PA",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009062"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009063.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "62",
+    "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 62 of 66 render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Moreover, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.\" Because such rejected or stricken material is not \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function\" it would not be considered a \"judicial document\" and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\") The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120. There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings. 55 DOJ-OGR-00009063",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 62 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "render that paper a judicial document subject to the right of public access. We think that the item filed must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process in order for it to be designated a judicial document. Moreover, if stricken, the documents enjoy no presumption of public access. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2019) ([under Civil Rule 12], \"the district court may strike such material from the filings on the grounds that it is \"redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.\" Because such rejected or stricken material is not \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function\" it would not be considered a \"judicial document\" and would enjoy no presumption of public access.\")",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Second Circuit established a framework in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) for courts to utilize in determining when the public has a right of access to particular documents. The Court of Appeals held that \"[b]efore any such common law right can attach, however, a court must first conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial documents.'\" Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. \"Once the court has determined that the documents are judicial documents and that therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption.\" Id. \"Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance competing considerations against it.'\" Id. at 120.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "There exists no compelling reason to release Juror No. 50's pleadings. Any public release of the documents will set off another round of publicity, speculation, and commentary, all of which is prejudicial to the truth finding process and Ms. Maxwell's rights to fair and impartial proceedings.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "55",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009063",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit",
+      "Court of Appeals",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Onondaga"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "2019",
+      "2006"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "929 F.3d 41",
+      "435 F.3d 110",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009063"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the concept of 'judicial documents' and the right of public access to court documents. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009064.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "63",
+    "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 63 of 66\n\nThe submissions by Juror No. 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the Court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the submissions are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror No. 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror No. 50's requests merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The requests would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.\n\nJuror No. 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror No. 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromis[e] the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).\n\nConclusion\n\nThe purpose of voir dire is \"to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen,\" and there \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges for cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" Barnes, 604 F.2d at 139. \"Voir dire [thus] plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468.\n\n56\nDOJ-OGR-00009064",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 63 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The submissions by Juror No. 50 have questionable merit, have not been ruled upon, and implicate an ongoing investigation by the parties and the Court into juror misconduct. Certainly, at least at this stage of the proceedings, the submissions are not \"judicial documents\" and until the issues around Juror No. 50's motion for intervention and discovery have been resolved they should remain sealed. If the Court believes Juror No. 50's requests merit judicial document status the seal should remain. The requests would be afforded the lowest presumption of public access and compelling reasons to maintain the sealed status exist.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror No. 50 has demonstrated a lack of reliability and an appetite for publicity. Should the documents be released the sotto voce comments regarding Juror No. 50's intent, state of mind, and actions will be fodder for the media and may influence the memories of other potential witnesses. Documents regularly remain sealed where public release would \"compromis[e] the interest in the integrity and security of [an] investigation,\" In re Sealed Search Warrants Issued June 4 & 5, 2008, No. 08-M-208 (DRH), 2008 WL 5667021, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Conclusion",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The purpose of voir dire is \"to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen,\" and there \"there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges for cause, but also his peremptory challenges.\" Barnes, 604 F.2d at 139. \"Voir dire [thus] plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.\" Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 468.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "56",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009064",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "N.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22",
+      "June 4 & 5, 2008",
+      "July 14, 2008"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "08-M-208",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009064"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the sealing of documents related to Juror No. 50 and the importance of voir dire in ensuring an impartial jury."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009065.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "64 of 66",
+    "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 64 of 66\n\nFor its part, this Court expressed “confidence” that its voir dire process would “smoke out” a juror who was dishonest. Ms. Maxwell relied on the Court’s process. And the Court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled: that potential jurors would carefully and honestly engage in voir dire.\n\nUnfortunately, we now know that Juror No. 50 (and at least one other juror) did not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.” Ex. 1, p 3. They are no longer entitled to the presumption of honesty.\n\nBecause Ms. Maxwell’s jury was not the fair and impartial one guaranteed her by the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new trial. In the alternative, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and examine all twelve jurors.\n\nDated: January 19, 2022\n\n57\nDOJ-OGR-00009065",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 64 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For its part, this Court expressed “confidence” that its voir dire process would “smoke out” a juror who was dishonest. Ms. Maxwell relied on the Court’s process. And the Court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled: that potential jurors would carefully and honestly engage in voir dire.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Unfortunately, we now know that Juror No. 50 (and at least one other juror) did not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.” Ex. 1, p 3. They are no longer entitled to the presumption of honesty.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Because Ms. Maxwell’s jury was not the fair and impartial one guaranteed her by the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new trial. In the alternative, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and examine all twelve jurors.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: January 19, 2022",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "57",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009065",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 19, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 613",
+      "Ex. 1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009065"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 64 of 66."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009066.json

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "65",
+    "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 65 of 66 Respectfully submitted, s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 58 DOJ-OGR-00009066",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 65 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted, s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "58",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009066",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009066"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of attorneys representing Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009067.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "66",
+    "document_number": "613",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Certificate of Service",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 66 of 66 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on January 19, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial, with the Court and counsel for the government: Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov s/ Nicole Simmons 59 DOJ-OGR-00009067",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 66 of 66",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Certificate of Service",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I hereby certify that on January 19, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing Ghislaine Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial, with the Court and counsel for the government:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Alison Moe Maurene Comey Andrew Rohrbach Lara Pomerantz U.S. Attorney's Office SDNY One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 Alison.moe@usdoj.gov Maurene.comey@usdoj.gov Andrew.Rohrbach@usdoj.gov Lara.Pomerantz@usdoj.gov",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "s/ Nicole Simmons",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "59",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009067",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Nicole Simmons"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Attorney's Office"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "January 19, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009067"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a Certificate of Service filed in a court case. It is a standard legal document with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009068.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 30 EXHIBIT 1 DOJ-OGR-00009068",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXHIBIT 1",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009068",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009068"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear header and footer. The main content is labeled as 'EXHIBIT 1'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009069.json

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\nPRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS\n\nPlease read the following instructions carefully before completing any portion of this questionnaire. Please print your juror number in the space provided at the top of each page. Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Please answer each and every question fully. Some questions have more than one part.\n\nYOU ARE SWORN TO GIVE TRUE AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. This questionnaire is designed to help simplify and shorten the jury selection process. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge. The questions are not intended to inquire unnecessarily into personal matters. Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experiences to select a fair and impartial jury.\n\nPlease answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer to a question then write, \"I don't know.\" There are no \"right\" or \"wrong\" answers, only truthful answers. If you have strong feelings about this case in general, please do not hesitate to share them. Although you may be a perfectly good juror in another case, this may or may not be the right case for you to sit on as an impartial juror. Both parties have the right to get honest answers and to hear your true opinions. Do not discuss the case or your answers with anyone. It is important that the answers be yours alone. Remember, you are sworn to give true and complete answers to all questions.\n\nIf you need extra space to answer any question, please use the extra blank sheets of paper included at the end of the questionnaire. Be sure to indicate on the blank page the number of the question you are answering. Do not write anything on the back of any page.\n\nDO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR THE CASE WITH ANYONE, NOW OR UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT. You should not discuss the questions or answers with fellow jurors. It is very important that your answers be your own individual answers. More broadly, do not discuss the case with anyone, including the lawyers (except in the presence of the Court), your fellow jurors, your family, your friends, or anyone else. Do not communicate about the case in any way, including telephone, e-mail, any social media app or website (such as Facebook), any communications app or website (such as Twitter). You must also avoid reading or hearing about the case (or anyone participating in the case) in newspapers, in magazines, on the radio or television, or on the Internet.\n\nDO NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE CASE. Do not conduct any research into the case (or anyone participating in the case) at any time before your entire jury service has been completed. That includes performing Internet searches, asking other people about the case, reading news stories, books, or reports about the case, or watching films or television programs that relate to the case. Do not read, watch, or listen to any information about this case.\n\n-3-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009069",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Please read the following instructions carefully before completing any portion of this questionnaire. Please print your juror number in the space provided at the top of each page. Do not write your name on the questionnaire. Please answer each and every question fully. Some questions have more than one part.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "YOU ARE SWORN TO GIVE TRUE AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. This questionnaire is designed to help simplify and shorten the jury selection process. The purpose of the questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge. The questions are not intended to inquire unnecessarily into personal matters. Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experiences to select a fair and impartial jury.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you do not know the answer to a question then write, \"I don't know.\" There are no \"right\" or \"wrong\" answers, only truthful answers. If you have strong feelings about this case in general, please do not hesitate to share them. Although you may be a perfectly good juror in another case, this may or may not be the right case for you to sit on as an impartial juror. Both parties have the right to get honest answers and to hear your true opinions. Do not discuss the case or your answers with anyone. It is important that the answers be yours alone. Remember, you are sworn to give true and complete answers to all questions.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "If you need extra space to answer any question, please use the extra blank sheets of paper included at the end of the questionnaire. Be sure to indicate on the blank page the number of the question you are answering. Do not write anything on the back of any page.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR THE CASE WITH ANYONE, NOW OR UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT. You should not discuss the questions or answers with fellow jurors. It is very important that your answers be your own individual answers. More broadly, do not discuss the case with anyone, including the lawyers (except in the presence of the Court), your fellow jurors, your family, your friends, or anyone else. Do not communicate about the case in any way, including telephone, e-mail, any social media app or website (such as Facebook), any communications app or website (such as Twitter). You must also avoid reading or hearing about the case (or anyone participating in the case) in newspapers, in magazines, on the radio or television, or on the Internet.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DO NOT DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE CASE. Do not conduct any research into the case (or anyone participating in the case) at any time before your entire jury service has been completed. That includes performing Internet searches, asking other people about the case, reading news stories, books, or reports about the case, or watching films or television programs that relate to the case. Do not read, watch, or listen to any information about this case.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-3-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009069",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009069"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire for a court case. It contains instructions for the juror to follow when completing the questionnaire. The document is printed with some handwritten information (Juror ID: 50)."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009070.json

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\nYour name will not be disclosed or connected to this questionnaire beyond the Judge and the parties in this case. However, if you believe that any of your answers contain private information that could embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy and wish to request that the Court keep them confidential and not distribute them beyond the Judge and parties, please indicate the particular question number at the end of the questionnaire.\n\nSUMMARY OF THE CASE\n\nThe Court is selecting a jury for a trial commencing on Monday, November 29, 2021. Although it is never possible to predict the length of a trial, currently this trial is expected to last approximately six weeks.\n\nThis is a criminal case. The Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been charged in an Indictment with various criminal offenses. The Indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the charges—referred to as “counts”—that the Government intends to prove to the jury at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nThe charges in the Indictment stem from allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004, the Defendant conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor.\n\nThe Indictment charges the Defendant in 6 counts: Count One of the Indictment charges the Defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Two charges the Defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Three charges the Defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Four charges the Defendant with transporting a minor to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Five charges the Defendant with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy. Count Six charges the Defendant with sex trafficking of a minor, and aiding and abetting the same.\n\nMs. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\n-4-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009070",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Your name will not be disclosed or connected to this questionnaire beyond the Judge and the parties in this case. However, if you believe that any of your answers contain private information that could embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy and wish to request that the Court keep them confidential and not distribute them beyond the Judge and parties, please indicate the particular question number at the end of the questionnaire.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SUMMARY OF THE CASE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court is selecting a jury for a trial commencing on Monday, November 29, 2021. Although it is never possible to predict the length of a trial, currently this trial is expected to last approximately six weeks.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This is a criminal case. The Defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been charged in an Indictment with various criminal offenses. The Indictment is not evidence. It simply contains the charges—referred to as “counts”—that the Government intends to prove to the jury at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The charges in the Indictment stem from allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004, the Defendant conspired with and aided and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Indictment charges the Defendant in 6 counts: Count One of the Indictment charges the Defendant with conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein and others to entice minors to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Two charges the Defendant with enticing a minor to travel to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Three charges the Defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. Count Four charges the Defendant with transporting a minor to engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, and aiding and abetting the same. Count Five charges the Defendant with participating in a sex trafficking conspiracy. Count Six charges the Defendant with sex trafficking of a minor, and aiding and abetting the same.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell has pled not guilty to all charges. Ms. Maxwell is presumed innocent, and before she can be found guilty on any charge, the jury must find that the Government has proven each element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-4-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009070",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Jeffrey Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Court",
+      "Judge"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "1994",
+      "2004",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009070"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with a handwritten juror ID number. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009071.json

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury summons or trial information",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\nSCHEDULE\n\nPotential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability during that week will be required.\n\nThe trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve).\n\nIf you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court.\n\nAll jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service.\n\n-5-\nDOJ-OGR-00009071",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SCHEDULE\n\nPotential jurors will be called back for further questioning and jury selection from Tuesday, November 16, 2021, through Friday, November 19, 2021. Your availability during that week will be required.\n\nThe trial will commence on Monday, November 29, 2021. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. Generally, trial will be held five days per week, Monday through Friday, from 9:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Trial will not be held on Friday, December 24, 2021 (Christmas Eve Day) and Friday, December 31, 2021 (New Year's Eve).\n\nIf you are selected as a juror, you will be required to be present for the taking of testimony and evidence for as long as the trial lasts. There are no plans to sequester the jury, which means you will go home every day after court.\n\nAll jury service involves some degree of hardship. Our court and justice system depends on citizens doing their civic duty to serve as jurors, which involves temporarily putting aside their regular business for jury service. The Court views service on a jury to be one of the highest duties a citizen owes to the United States. Mere inconvenience or the usual financial hardship of jury service will not be sufficient to excuse a prospective juror. You must show extraordinary personal or financial hardship to be excused from service.",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-5-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009071",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Department of Justice"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 16, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "December 24, 2021",
+      "December 31, 2021",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009071"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a jury summons or trial information document. It is well-formatted and legible, with clear headings and concise language. The handwritten '50' in the Juror ID field suggests that this document is related to a specific juror."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009072.json

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 30 Juror ID: 50 PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ABILITY TO SERVE Please note: In the event you are excused from service on this jury, you will likely not be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report to the Court's Jury Clerk for placement on another panel for another case. 1. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and November 19, 2021, which is when jury selection will take place? Yes No 1a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are): 2. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and approximately January 15, 2022, which is the estimated length for trial? Yes No 2a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are): 3. Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021? Yes No 4. Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience? Yes No 4a. If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience: -6- DOJ-OGR-00009072",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ABILITY TO SERVE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Please note: In the event you are excused from service on this jury, you will likely not be excused from jury service in general. You will instead be required to report to the Court's Jury Clerk for placement on another panel for another case.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 16, 2021, and November 19, 2021, which is when jury selection will take place? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are):",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. Do you have any unmovable commitments between November 29, 2021, and approximately January 15, 2022, which is the estimated length for trial? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2a. If yes, please explain (without indicating the name of where you work or the names of any family members or friends, or other personal information that might identify who you are):",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. Do you have any international travel plans between now and November 29, 2021? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4. Do any circumstances exist such that serving on the jury in this case would entail serious hardship or extreme inconvenience? Yes No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4a. If yes, please briefly describe the serious hardship or extreme inconvenience:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-6-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009072",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court's Jury Clerk"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 16, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "January 15, 2022",
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "50",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009072"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with mostly printed text and some handwritten answers. The juror ID is handwritten as '50'. All answers are 'No'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009073.json

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 30 Juror ID: 50 5. Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.? (Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the Courthouse each day for selected jurors). Yes No If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or remain until 5:00 p.m.: 6. Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English? Yes No 7. Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to serve on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or concentrating? Yes No If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the accommodation. 8. Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the evidence at this trial? Yes No If yes, please explain: -7- DOJ-OGR-00009073",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5. Do you have any personal commitments that would make it difficult for you to get to court by 9:30 a.m., every day of trial, or remain at the courthouse until 5:00 p.m.? (Please note, the Court will arrange and provide transportation to and from the Courthouse each day for selected jurors). Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5a. If yes, please explain why you would be unable to get to court by 9:30 a.m. or remain until 5:00 p.m.:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6. Do you have any difficulty reading, speaking, or understanding English? Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7. Do you have any medical, physical, or mental condition or illness that makes you unable to serve on a jury, including difficulty hearing, seeing, reading, or concentrating? Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7a. If yes, please briefly describe the condition or illness. If you believe you could serve as a juror if such condition were accommodated in some way, please state the accommodation.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8. Are you taking any medication which would prevent you from giving full attention to all the evidence at this trial? Yes No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-7-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009073",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009073"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire with mostly printed text and some handwritten responses. The juror ID is 50. All answers are 'No'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009074.json

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\n9. Do you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you unable to render a verdict in a criminal case?\nYes No\n\n9a. If yes, please explain:\n\n\n\n\n\nBASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDIA RESTRICTIONS\n\n10. Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Judge to determine. You are required to accept the law as the Judge explains it to you even if you do not like the law or disagree with it, and you must determine the facts according to those instructions. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to follow the Judge's instructions if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n\n10a. If no, please explain:\n\n\n\n\n\n11. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent at all stages of the trial and is not required to put on any defense at all. The Government is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge. Do you accept these principles, and will you be able to apply them if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n\n11a. If no, please explain:\n\n\n\n\n\n-8-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009074",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9. Do you have any religious, philosophical, or other beliefs that would make you unable to render a verdict in a criminal case?",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Yes No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDIA RESTRICTIONS",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10. Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Judge to determine. You are required to accept the law as the Judge explains it to you even if you do not like the law or disagree with it, and you must determine the facts according to those instructions. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to follow the Judge's instructions if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Yes No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent at all stages of the trial and is not required to put on any defense at all. The Government is required to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each charge. Do you accept these principles, and will you be able to apply them if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Yes No",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "inline"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-8-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009074",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009074"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with handwritten answers. The juror ID is 50. The document is page 7 of 30."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009075.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\n12. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify, and that a juror cannot hold it against the defendant if she chooses not to testify. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n12a. If no, please explain:\n\n13. A juror is required by law to make his or her decision based solely on the evidence or lack of evidence presented in Court, and not on the basis of conjecture, suspicion, bias, sympathy, or prejudice. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n13a. If no, please explain:\n\n14. Under the law, the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and thus the issue of punishment must not enter into your deliberations as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as charged. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?\nYes No\n14a. If no, please explain:\n\n-9-\nDOJ-OGR-00009075",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12. The law provides that a defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify, and that a juror cannot hold it against the defendant if she chooses not to testify. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "12a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13. A juror is required by law to make his or her decision based solely on the evidence or lack of evidence presented in Court, and not on the basis of conjecture, suspicion, bias, sympathy, or prejudice. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "13a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "14. Under the law, the question of punishment is for the Court alone to decide, and thus the issue of punishment must not enter into your deliberations as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as charged. Do you accept this principle, and will you be able to apply it if selected to serve on this jury?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yes",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "14a. If no, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-9-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009075",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009075"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with handwritten answers. The juror ID is 50, and they answered 'Yes' to questions 12, 13, and 14."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009076.json

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Jury Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 30\n\nJuror ID: 50\n\n15. You may hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain evidence from searches. The Court will instruct you that those searches were legal and that the evidence obtained from those searches is admissible in this case. Do you have any feelings or opinions about searches conducted by law enforcement officers, or the use of evidence obtained from searches, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?\n\nYes No\n\n15a. If yes, please explain:\n\n16. You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have you had any experiences with experts, or do you have any general feelings about the use of experts, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?\n\nYes No\n\n16a. If yes, please explain:\n\n17. As instructed above, from now and until your jury service is complete, you are instructed to avoid all media coverage and not to go on the Internet with regard to this case for any purpose. That is, you are forbidden from consuming any news media or social media, or any discussion of this case (or of anyone participating in the case) outside of the courtroom whatsoever. You also must not discuss this case with anyone. This includes your family, friends, spouse, domestic partner, colleagues, and co-workers. These instructions apply from now and until you are either dismissed from jury selection or chosen as a juror and the trial is complete. When we return for the next step in jury selection, the Judge will ask you if you have followed this instruction.\n\nDo you have any reservations or concerns about your ability or willingness to follow this instruction?\n\nYes No\n\n-10-\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009076",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID: 50",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15. You may hear testimony in this case that law enforcement officers recovered certain evidence from searches. The Court will instruct you that those searches were legal and that the evidence obtained from those searches is admissible in this case. Do you have any feelings or opinions about searches conducted by law enforcement officers, or the use of evidence obtained from searches, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16. You also may hear testimony in this case from expert witnesses. Have you had any experiences with experts, or do you have any general feelings about the use of experts, that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "16a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17. As instructed above, from now and until your jury service is complete, you are instructed to avoid all media coverage and not to go on the Internet with regard to this case for any purpose. That is, you are forbidden from consuming any news media or social media, or any discussion of this case (or of anyone participating in the case) outside of the courtroom whatsoever. You also must not discuss this case with anyone. This includes your family, friends, spouse, domestic partner, colleagues, and co-workers. These instructions apply from now and until you are either dismissed from jury selection or chosen as a juror and the trial is complete. When we return for the next step in jury selection, the Judge will ask you if you have followed this instruction.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-10-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009076",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "Judge"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "50",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009076"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a jury questionnaire with handwritten responses. The juror ID is 50. The document is page 9 of 30."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009077.json

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 30\nJuror ID: 50\n17a. If yes, please explain:\n\n\n\nPRIOR JURY SERVICE\n18. Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court?\nYes No\n19. Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in federal, state, county, or city court?\nYes No\nEXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, DEFENDANT, OR CRIME VICTIM\n20. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal court case, whether criminal or civil, as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n20a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n20b. If yes to 20a, please explain:\n\n\n\n21. Have you or any relative or close friend ever been involved or appeared as a witness in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury or by a congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency, or been questioned in any matter by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n-11-\nDOJ-OGR-00009077",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17a. If yes, please explain:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "PRIOR JURY SERVICE",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "18. Have you ever served as a juror in a trial in any court?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "19. Have you ever at any time served as a member of a grand jury, whether in federal, state, county, or city court?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXPERIENCE AS A WITNESS, DEFENDANT, OR CRIME VICTIM",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever participated in a state or federal court case, whether criminal or civil, as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20b. If yes to 20a, please explain:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "21. Have you or any relative or close friend ever been involved or appeared as a witness in any investigation by a federal or state grand jury or by a congressional or state legislative committee, licensing authority, or governmental agency, or been questioned in any matter by any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency?",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "No",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-11-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009077",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009077"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire with some handwritten marks indicating 'No' answers to questions 18, 19, 20, and 21. The juror ID is handwritten as '50'."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009078.json

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "11 of 30",
+    "document_number": "613-1",
+    "date": "02/24/22",
+    "document_type": "Juror Questionnaire",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 30\nJuror ID: 50\n21a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n21b. If yes to 21a, please explain:\n22. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry or investigation?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n22a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n22b. If yes to 22a, please explain:\n23. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a crime?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No\n23a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n23b. If yes to 23a, please explain:\n-12-\nDOJ-OGR-00009078",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 30",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "50",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror ID:",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "21a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n21b. If yes to 21a, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "22. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been subpoenaed for any inquiry or investigation?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "22a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n22b. If yes to 22a, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "23. Have you, or has any relative or close friend, ever been arrested or charged with a crime?\nYes (self) Yes (friend or family member) No",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "X",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "23a. If yes, is there anything about that experience that would prevent you from acting as a fair and impartial juror in this case?\nYes No\n23b. If yes to 23a, please explain:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "-12-",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009078",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "02/24/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "613-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00009078"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a juror questionnaire with some handwritten marks indicating 'No' to questions 22 and 23. The juror ID is handwritten as '50'."
+}