DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg

685 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

6
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 685 KB
Summary

This legal document, filed on April 1, 2022, discusses the jury selection process in a criminal case. It details how the Defendant chose not to challenge for cause two prospective jurors, Juror A and Juror B, despite their disclosures of personal experiences related to sexual abuse. The document contrasts their situations with that of another juror, Juror 50, and notes that all affirmed their ability to remain fair and impartial.

People (6)

Name Role Context
Defendant Defendant in a legal case
Mentioned throughout as the party who did not challenge certain prospective jurors for cause.
Juror 50 Prospective Juror
A juror whose disclosed experiences are used as a point of comparison for other jurors. Affirmed his ability to be im...
Juror A Prospective Juror
A juror who reported being sexually molested by an uncle at age 12 or 13. She was not challenged for cause by the Def...
Juror B Prospective Juror
A juror who reported that a friend was coerced and sexually abused by a professor. She was not challenged for cause b...
Maxwell Defendant
Referenced in a citation to "Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 4," indicating this is likely the Defendant's name.
Juror C Prospective Juror
Mentioned in a footnote as a juror whose number has been redacted for privacy.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
Court government agency
Mentioned as the body that asked questions of jurors and redacted juror numbers for privacy.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga company
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga' in a footnote.
Press-Enter. Co. company
Mentioned in the case citation 'Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty.' in a footnote.
Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty. government agency
Mentioned in the case citation 'Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty.' in a footnote.

Timeline (4 events)

Juror A was sexually molested by her uncle.
Juror A Juror A's uncle
A friend of Juror B was coerced and sexually abused by a professor. This was reported by Juror B two years before jury selection.
Juror B's friend a professor
Jury selection process where prospective jurors disclosed personal experiences with sexual assault, abuse, or harassment.
March 8
A court hearing where Juror 50 affirmed his impartiality regarding issues of reporting sexual abuse.

Locations (2)

Location Context
Mentioned in the case citation 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga'.
Mentioned in the case citation 'Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty.'.

Relationships (3)

Juror A familial uncle
The document states Juror A reported she was 'sexually molested by an uncle'.
Defendant legal Juror A
The Defendant did not challenge Juror A for cause during jury selection.
Defendant legal Juror B
The Defendant did not challenge Juror B for cause during jury selection.

Key Quotes (4)

"sexually molested by an uncle when [she] was 12, 13."
Source
— Juror A (Describing her personal experience with sexual abuse during jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg
Quote #1
"someone familiar to [her] . . . who was part of [her] life,"
Source
— Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. (A quote from a legal brief, presumably describing the perpetrator of Juror A's abuse.)
DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg
Quote #2
"upset [him] in such a way that would distract [him] from [his] duty as a juror."
Source
— Juror 50 (Quoted from a hearing transcript, where Juror 50 affirmed that the subject matter would not improperly affect him.)
DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg
Quote #3
"issues of reporting or not reporting sexual abuse that might"
Source
— Juror 50 (Part of a statement made by Juror 50 at a March 8 hearing, affirming his impartiality.)
DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document