DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg

679 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
8
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 679 KB
Summary

This document is a page from a legal filing, dated June 29, 2023, that outlines the legal framework for challenging jurors for cause. It details the different types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—and cites several U.S. court cases to define these categories and establish the criteria for their application. The text also briefly mentions the possibility of a post-verdict hearing for juror misconduct.

People (4)

Name Role Context
Greenwood Party in a legal case
Mentioned in the case citation 'Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984)'.
Stewart Party in a legal case
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 304 (2d Cir. 2006)'.
Torres Party in a legal case
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997)'.
Baker Party in a legal case
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018)'.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
Power Equip., Inc. company
Party in the legal case 'Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood'.
United States government agency
Party in the legal cases 'United States v. Stewart', 'United States v. Torres', and 'United States v. Baker'.

Timeline (2 events)

The document discusses the legal standards and categories for challenging a juror for cause during voir dire, including actual, implied, and inferable bias.
The document mentions that a court may conduct a post-verdict hearing in cases of concrete allegations of juror misconduct.

Key Quotes (8)

"that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."
Source
— Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood (Describing the second part of a two-prong test for challenging a juror.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #1
"narrowly specified, provable and legally cognizable bases."
Source
— United States v. Torres (Stating the grounds on which a party may challenge a juror for cause.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #2
"Actual bias is bias in fact—the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality."
Source
— United States v. Torres (Defining 'actual bias' as one of the categories for a challenge for cause.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #3
"bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law."
Source
— United States v. Torres (Defining 'implied bias' or 'presumed bias'.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #4
"reserved for ‘exceptional situations,’"
Source
— This Court (referencing United States v. Torres) (Describing the narrow application of the 'implied bias' category.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #5
"are related to the parties"
Source
— United States v. Torres (Providing an example of a circumstance for implied bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #6
"were victims of the alleged crime itself."
Source
— United States v. Torres (Providing another example of a circumstance for implied bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #7
"[b]ias may be inferred when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias."
Source
— United States v. Torres (Defining 'inferable bias' and the conditions under which it may be found.)
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
Quote #8

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document