DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg

619 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

7
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 619 KB
Summary

This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.

People (7)

Name Role Context
Stewart
Mentioned in a legal citation (quoting Stewart, 433 F.3d at 304).
Greer
Mentioned in legal citations (citing Greer, 285 F.3d at 171; Greer, 285 F.3d at 173).
Shaoul
Mentioned in a legal case name, United States v. Shaoul.
McDonough
Mentioned in the context of a legal precedent or test from a case.
Daugerdas
Mentioned in a legal citation (As in Daugerdas).
Juror No. 50 Juror
A juror whose alleged misconduct (lying during voir dire) is the subject of the legal argument.
Ms. Maxwell Defendant
The individual on whose behalf the legal argument is being made, arguing that Juror No. 50 was biased.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
district court government agency
Referenced as the court that must determine the validity of a challenge to a juror.
Court government agency
Refers to the court hearing the case, which would have struck Juror No. 50 for cause.
United States government agency
Mentioned as a party in the case name United States v. Shaoul.

Timeline (1 events)

The voir dire (jury selection) process during which Juror No. 50 allegedly gave false answers under oath.
Court

Relationships (2)

Ms. Maxwell legal (defendant-juror) Juror No. 50
Ms. Maxwell is arguing that Juror No. 50's misconduct and false statements during jury selection demonstrate he was biased and should have been removed from the jury.
Ms. Maxwell adversarial (legal) government
The document outlines Ms. Maxwell's arguments and refutes the 'government's contrary arguments,' indicating they are opposing parties in a legal case.

Key Quotes (2)

"the district court must determine if it would have granted the hypothetical challenge’ if it had known the true facts."
Source
— Stewart (cited case) (Quoted to establish the legal standard for evaluating a juror challenge after the fact.)
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
Quote #1
"The deliberateness of the particular lies evidence[] partiality."
Source
— Greer (cited case) (Quoted to support the argument that Juror No. 50's intentional falsehoods are evidence of his bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
Quote #2

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document