DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
516 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
516 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that the questioning of 'Juror No. 50' should be broad and encompass any topic related to actual bias, citing legal precedents like Greer and United States v. James. It asserts that due to the juror's alleged pattern of giving false answers, Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept the juror's denial of acting deliberately and should be allowed to investigate the totality of the circumstances.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the party who should be allowed to question Juror No. 50 for potential bias.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
The subject of a proposed questioning regarding potential bias, intent, and a pattern of giving false answers to the ...
|
| James | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. James'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Judicial body |
The entity to which Juror No. 50 allegedly gave false answers and the body that the government is making suggestions to.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A legal argument is being made for the questioning of Juror No. 50 to determine actual bias.
Relationships (2)
The document presents Ms. Maxwell's legal argument against a proposal made by the government regarding the scope of questioning a juror.
Ms. Maxwell is seeking to question Juror No. 50 about potential bias and false answers given to the Court.
Key Quotes (2)
"is among the ‘factors to be considered’ in the ultimate determination of bias. . . ."Source
— Greer, 285 F.3d at 173
(Cited as legal precedent to argue that a juror's deliberate action is a factor in determining bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
Quote #1
"[W]hen attempting to show bias or interest, as opposed to bad reputation, the examiner is not bound to accept the witness’ answer, but is free to call additional witnesses for impeachment."Source
— United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 46 (2d Cir. 1979)
(Cited as legal precedent to support the argument that Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept Juror No. 50's assertions and can seek further evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
Quote #2
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document