mirror of
https://github.com/epstein-docs/epstein-docs.github.io.git
synced 2025-12-10 04:01:31 -06:00
50 lines
3.3 KiB
JSON
50 lines
3.3 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"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."
|
|
} |