DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg
709 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
709 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding juror misconduct. It contends that the government's view—that Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof because Juror No. 50 was untruthful during jury selection—is unfair and incorrect. The argument cites legal precedents, including McDonough and United States v. Stewart, to establish the proper standard for challenging a juror based on false voir dire responses.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| McDonough |
Party in the case McDonough, cited as legal precedent.
|
|
| Blackmun, J. | Justice |
Mentioned as concurring in the McDonough case.
|
| Smith |
Party in the case Smith, cited as legal precedent.
|
|
| O’Connor, J. | Justice |
Mentioned as concurring in the McDonough case.
|
| Langford |
Party in a case, cited as legal precedent.
|
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
A juror in Ms. Maxwell's trial who allegedly did not answer questions truthfully.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Movant |
A party in the current legal case, arguing about the burden of proof regarding Juror No. 50's alleged dishonesty.
|
| Haynes |
Party in the case United States v. Haynes, cited as legal precedent.
|
|
| Stewart |
Party in the case United States v. Stewart, cited as legal precedent.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Supreme Court | government agency |
Implied by citations to "U.S." case reporters (e.g., 464 U.S. at 556-57) and references to Justices Blackmun and O'Co...
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals mentioned as having held a certain view in Langford and in the case United States v. Haynes.
|
| The government | government agency |
The opposing party to Ms. Maxwell in the legal case, whose view on the burden of proof is being challenged.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A discussion of the legal standard for challenging a juror for cause based on false statements made during voir dire, in the context of Ms. Maxwell's case regarding Juror No. 50.
Relationships (2)
The document centers on Ms. Maxwell's legal challenge concerning Juror No. 50, who allegedly did not tell the truth during jury selection, thereby preventing Maxwell from challenging him for cause.
The document contrasts Ms. Maxwell's legal position with the government's view on the burden of proof required to challenge a juror's dishonesty.
Key Quotes (2)
"the facts are such that bias is to be inferred."Source
— McDonough case precedent
(Quoted from the McDonough case to describe exceptional circumstances for demonstrating juror bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg
Quote #1
"[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."Source
— United States v. Stewart case precedent
(Quoted as the standard under Second Circuit law for addressing undisclosed juror bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009206.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document