DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
708 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
708 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
The subject of a legal argument regarding potential bias and untruthful answers during voir dire.
|
| Martinez-Salazar |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 316'.
|
|
| Torres |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997)'.
|
|
| Daugerdas |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)'.
|
|
| McDonough |
Mentioned in relation to a legal reading urged by the Government and in a case citation 'McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556'.
|
|
| Parse |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Referred to as the judicial body being addressed in the filing.
|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases, such as 'United States v. Torres'.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00009890'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Argument that Juror No. 50's implied and inferable bias requires a new trial.
Voir dire process during which a prospective juror makes statements.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation as the Southern District of New York court.
|
Relationships (1)
Filing Party (implied)
→
adversarial
→
Government
The document argues against the Government's legal position, stating the Government 'attempts to raise the bar for relief' and that its contention is contrary to the proper legal test.
Key Quotes (3)
"A juror is found by the judge to be partial either because the juror admits partiality, or the judge finds actual partiality based upon the juror’s voir dire answers."Source
— United States v. Torres
(Quoted to explain the basis for determining juror partiality.)
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
Quote #1
"The Government urges this Court to adopt a narrow reading of McDonough unsupported by law."Source
— The author of the document
(Describing the government's legal position in the case of United States v. Daugerdas.)
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
Quote #2
"would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."Source
— United States v. Daugerdas
(Quoted to establish the test for whether a truthful response from a juror warrants relief.)
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document