DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 32 of a larger document, arguing the legal standard for scheduling a post-verdict hearing regarding potential juror misconduct by 'Juror 50'. It cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to establish that such a hearing is only warranted under strict conditions, requiring 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence' of impropriety, and is not meant to be a 'fishing expedition' for the defendant.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Torres | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'Torres, 128 F.3d at 48' regarding juror bias.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a section titled 'The Court Should Schedule a Limited Hearing Regarding Juror 50'.
|
| Stewart | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 133 (2d Cir. 2009)' regarding juror misconduct.
|
| Ianniello | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543' and 'Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544' regarding standards for post-verdict hearings.
|
| Baker | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018)'.
|
| Sun Myung Moon | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Sun Myung Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983)'.
|
| Moten | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654, 667 (2d Cir. 1978)'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Referenced as the court that has set legal precedent on juror bias and misconduct hearings.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Key Quotes (6)
"confronting the legality of [her] own past acts as well."Source
— Torres case precedent
(Describing a situation where a juror's past conduct was similar to the charged offenses.)
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
Quote #1
"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence . . . that a specific, non-speculative impropriety has occurred."Source
— United States v. Stewart case precedent
(Stating the standard for when a post-verdict hearing into alleged juror misconduct is proper.)
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
Quote #2
"concrete allegations of inappropriate conduct that constitute competent and relevant evidence,"Source
— United States v. Baker case precedent
(Describing how the standard for a post-verdict hearing can be met.)
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
Quote #3
"need not be irrebuttable because if the allegations were conclusive, there would be no need for a hearing."Source
— United States v. Baker case precedent
(Clarifying the nature of allegations required for a hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
Quote #4
"should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision."Source
— Ianniello case precedent
(Emphasizing that the scope of an inquiry into juror misconduct must be narrowly tailored.)
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
Quote #5
"A hearing is not held to afford a convicted defendant the opportunity to ‘conduct a fishing expedition.’"Source
— United States v. Sun Myung Moon case precedent
(Stating the purpose of a post-verdict hearing is not for defendants to search for new issues.)
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
Quote #6
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document