DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This document is page 31 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments regarding a motion for a new trial, specifically discussing the legal standards for juror misconduct and false answers during voir dire (jury selection). The text cites precedents such as United States v. Langford and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Brennan | Supreme Court Justice |
Cited in the legal argument regarding McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.
|
| Juror Payton | Juror (in cited case) |
A juror in the McDonough case who remained silent during voir dire regarding personal injuries.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Court whose ruling in United States v. Langford is being cited.
|
|
| McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. |
Party in the cited case law.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00009723).
|
Key Quotes (3)
"We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
Quote #1
"proper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
Quote #2
"Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in th[e] . . . determination of actual bias."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document