{
  "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."
}