DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg

632 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 632 KB
Summary

This document is a page from a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024, concerning the appeal of a District Court's decision. The appellant, Maxwell, argues for a new trial on the grounds that Juror 50 was dishonest on a jury questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The text outlines the high legal standard of "abuse of discretion" required to overturn the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that new trials are granted only sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances.

People (7)

Name Role Context
Maxwell Appellant/Defendant
Mentioned as the individual whose motion for a new trial was denied by the District Court.
Juror 50 Juror
The juror who allegedly failed to accurately respond to a jury questionnaire, which is the basis for Maxwell's motion.
Rivas Litigant
Mentioned in the case citation 'Rivas v. Brattesani'.
Brattesani Litigant
Mentioned in the case citation 'Rivas v. Brattesani'.
Ferguson Litigant
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Ferguson'.
Sims Litigant
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re Sims'.
Moon Litigant
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Moon'.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
District Court judicial body
The court that denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
United States government
Mentioned as a party in the case citations 'United States v. Ferguson' and 'United States v. Moon'.

Timeline (2 events)

Maxwell's motion for a new trial was denied by the District Court following a special evidentiary hearing.
District Court
Jury selection during which Juror 50 allegedly failed to accurately respond to questions on a jury questionnaire.

Relationships (2)

Maxwell legal (litigant-juror) Juror 50
Maxwell's motion for a new trial is based on the contention that Juror 50 failed to accurately answer questions during jury selection.
Maxwell legal (litigant-court) District Court
The District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, and this document is reviewing that decision.

Key Quotes (6)

"haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences."
Source
— Court (citing United States v. Moon) (Describing the court's reluctance to question jurors after a verdict has been reached.)
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
Quote #1
"vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,"
Source
— Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a) (Stating the legal standard for when a court can grant a new trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
Quote #2
"sparingly"
Source
— Court (interpreting Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a)) (Describing how often courts should grant new trials.)
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
Quote #3
"the most extraordinary circumstances."
Source
— Court (interpreting Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a)) (Describing the conditions under which a new trial should be granted.)
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
Quote #4
"[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance."
Source
— Court (citing Rivas v. Brattesani) (Explaining the standard of review for 'abuse of discretion'.)
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
Quote #5
"a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions."
Source
— Court (citing In re Sims) (Providing a definition for what constitutes an 'abuse of discretion'.)
DOJ-OGR-00000018.jpg
Quote #6

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document