Legal Document - DOJ-OGR-00020972 | Trove Document Archive

Processing Document...

0%

Initializing...

Extraction Summary

5

People

2

Organizations

0

Locations

2

Events

2

Relationships

1

Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document

File Size: 720 KB

Summary

This legal document is a court's analysis regarding the impartiality of 'Juror 50'. The Court argues that even if the juror, a victim of sexual abuse, had disclosed this during jury selection, it would not have been grounds for a 'challenge for cause'. The Court found the juror's testimony credible and affirmed that individuals with traumatic experiences can serve as fair and impartial jurors, drawing parallels to jurors in murder and fraud trials.

People (5)

Name	Role	Context
Juror 50	Juror	A juror whose ability to be fair and impartial is being discussed by the Court, due to his history as a victim of sex...
Owen		Mentioned in a case citation: U.S. ex rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F.2d 813, 818 (2d Cir. 1970).
McMann		Mentioned in a case citation: U.S. ex rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F.2d 813, 818 (2d Cir. 1970).
Stewart		Mentioned in a case citation: Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 439.
Maxwell	Defendant	Mentioned in a citation to a pre-hearing briefing (Maxwell Br. at 9-10) as 'the Defendant'.

Organizations (2)

Name	Type	Context
Court	judicial body	The judicial body presiding over the case, making a determination about Juror 50's impartiality.
Government	government agency	Mentioned in a footnote as a party in the case that challenged prospective jurors.

Timeline (2 events)

Jury selection process where the impartiality of Juror 50 was considered.

Juror 50 Court Defendant Government

View

A murder trial previously presided over by the Court where a juror with a murdered family member was not struck for cause.

Court

View

Relationships (2)

Court → judicial → Juror 50

The Court is analyzing Juror 50's testimony and ability to serve impartially on a jury.

Defendant (Maxwell) → adversarial → Government

The document refers to them as opposing parties in a legal case, with both challenging prospective jurors during jury selection.

Key Quotes (1)

"The question now is whether [Juror 50’s] omission reveals a bias sufficient to support a for-cause challenge."

Source

— Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 439 (Quoted in a footnote to explain the legal standard being applied to Juror 50's situation.)

DOJ-OGR-00020972.jpg

Quote #1