DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
482 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
482 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of the Government's response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to satisfy the 'Second Prong of McDonough,' a legal test, regarding Juror 50, who allegedly gave a false answer on a questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse. While finding the defendant's argument unpersuasive, the Government agrees a limited hearing is warranted to determine if the juror's answer was deliberately false and argues the court must decide if it would have granted a challenge for cause, a standard the defendant allegedly omitted.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a motion due to an alleged inconsistency between public statements and an answer on a jury questionnaire.
|
| McDonough | Party in a cited legal case |
The name is part of the 'Second Prong of McDonough' legal test being discussed.
|
| Stewart | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303' and 'Stewart, 433 F.3d at 304' as a source for the legal standard.
|
| Greer | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158' as a source for the legal standard.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
A party in the legal case, arguing against the defendant's motion but agreeing to a limited hearing.
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The judicial body being asked to grant the defendant's motion and which must determine the outcome of a hypothetical ...
|
| district court | Judicial body |
Mentioned in the legal standard as the body that must determine if it would have granted a hypothetical challenge.
|
| 2d Cir. | Judicial body |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in a case law reference.
|
Timeline (1 events)
The Government's argument against a defendant's motion concerning Juror 50's questionnaire answers, referencing the McDonough legal test.
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the Government's arguments against a motion filed by the defendant in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Key Quotes (2)
"The second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."Source
— The defendant's brief
(A quote from the defendant's brief which the Government claims omits a key part of the legal standard.)
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
Quote #1
"the district court must ‘determine if it would have granted the hypothetical challenge.’"Source
— Legal standard from Stewart, 433 F.3d at 304 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002))
(Presented as the correct and complete legal standard that the defendant's brief allegedly omits.)
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document