DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg

683 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing / legal memorandum (motion to intervene)
File Size: 683 KB
Summary

This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 609) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for Juror 50's right to intervene in the action to obtain a copy of his Jury Questionnaire under seal and asserts his right to privacy regarding his history as a sexual assault survivor. The text references an inquiry initiated by Judge Nathan regarding Juror 50's conduct and potential non-disclosure during jury selection, heightened by intense media scrutiny.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Juror 50 Juror / Movant
Seeking to intervene in the action, obtain his jury questionnaire, and maintain privacy regarding prior sexual assaul...
Judge Nathan Judge
Issued an order inviting Juror 50 to address the appropriateness of an inquiry into his conduct.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
The Court
The entity presiding over the case (SDNY).
Prosecution
Mentioned as a recipient for the Jury Questionnaire.
Defense Counsel
Mentioned as a recipient for the Jury Questionnaire.
DOJ
Implied by footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.

Timeline (3 events)

2022-01-05
Court Order regarding inquiry into Juror 50
Court
2022-02-24
Filing of Document 609
Court
Juror 50's Counsel
Prior to 2022
Jury Deliberations and Verdict
Court
Juror 50 Other Jurors

Relationships (2)

Juror 50 Juror / Judge Judge Nathan
Judge Nathan issued an order inviting Juror 50 to address an inquiry.
Juror 50 Interview Subject Media
Document mentions 'statements that he has made to the media about his jury service.'

Key Quotes (3)

"Juror 50 further desires to maintain his privacy and, to the extent possible, avoid having to disclose intimate details of his experience as the victim of prior sexual assault."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg
Quote #1
"The relevant precedent from case law makes it abundantly clear that jurors have compelling and legitimate rights to privacy regarding 'intensely personal subjects,' including prior sexual assaults."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg
Quote #2
"Judge Nathan specifically invited Juror 50 to address the 'appropriateness of an inquiry' into his conduct as a juror and affect that his personal history may have had on juror deliberations and the verdict rendered in this matter."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg
Quote #3

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document