DOJ-OGR-00008247.jpg
612 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
612 KB
Summary
This document, a court transcript filed on December 8, 2021, details a discussion about jury selection in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The speaker, a court official, outlines the process of reviewing prospective juror lists, noting the government's and defense's differing views on excusing jurors. The document also mentions a communication from the defense requesting to modify its previous juror strikes.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| I | Speaker/Court Official |
Narrating the jury selection process and decisions, referring to 'My chambers'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| defense | Legal party |
Party in the case, believes certain jurors should be excused, objected to striking four jurors, and wishes to modify ...
|
| government | Legal party |
Party in the case, believes certain jurors should be excused, and did not object to striking certain prospective jurors.
|
| Court | Judicial body |
Sent lists of prospective jurors and is involved in the decision-making process for voir dire.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
The entity responsible for transcribing the document.
|
| DOJ-OGR | Government agency |
Part of the document identifier, likely related to the Department of Justice - Office of General Records/Review.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-12-08
A discussion regarding the selection of prospective jurors, including the creation and review of juror lists, the parties' positions on excusing jurors, and the defense's request to modify its previous strikes.
Implied to be a courtroom or chambers
Relationships (1)
They have differing beliefs on which prospective jurors should be excused and object to each other's positions on striking jurors.
Key Quotes (3)
"I understand the government didn't object to striking those prospective jurors, but the defense objected to striking four of them."Source
— I
(Describing the differing positions of the government and defense regarding juror strikes.)
DOJ-OGR-00008247.jpg
Quote #1
"So from my perspective, we'll keep those four on the list for whom the parties agree should proceed to voir dire."Source
— I
(Stating the court's decision regarding the four jurors the defense objected to striking.)
DOJ-OGR-00008247.jpg
Quote #2
"the defense wishes to modify its previous strikes, it indicated it wanted to move three from the agreed to proceed to voir dire list to the defense objects to proceeding to voir dire list."Source
— I
(Summarizing the content of a communication received from the defense.)
DOJ-OGR-00008247.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,496 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 529 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 18 3
LBF3MAXC
cause; three, prospective jurors that the defense but not the
government believes should be excused; and four, prospective
jurors that the government but not the defense believe should
be excused.
And so that produced, putting those together for the
days, we had those four lists. My chambers sent the parties,
just so you had an opportunity to review them before today, a
list of 13 additional prospective jurors that were on the
parties' agreed to proceed to voir dire list, that when I
looked at, thought should be considered for excusing and I had
13 juror numbers on that list.
I understand the government didn't object to striking
those prospective jurors, but the defense objected to striking
four of them. So from my perspective, we'll keep those four on
the list for whom the parties agree should proceed to voir
dire.
So, subtracting those out from the ones that the Court
sent, we would move the following onto the agreed to not return
list: 23, 114, 215, 257, 338, 420, 422, 542 and 561.
And then I also received in that letter or e-mail that
the defense wishes to modify its previous strikes, it indicated
it wanted to move three from the agreed to proceed to voir dire
list to the defense objects to proceeding to voir dire list.
One of them, by my count, was already on the agreed to
strike. That was number 92. So the two new ones that the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008247
LBF3MAXC
cause; three, prospective jurors that the defense but not the
government believes should be excused; and four, prospective
jurors that the government but not the defense believe should
be excused.
And so that produced, putting those together for the
days, we had those four lists. My chambers sent the parties,
just so you had an opportunity to review them before today, a
list of 13 additional prospective jurors that were on the
parties' agreed to proceed to voir dire list, that when I
looked at, thought should be considered for excusing and I had
13 juror numbers on that list.
I understand the government didn't object to striking
those prospective jurors, but the defense objected to striking
four of them. So from my perspective, we'll keep those four on
the list for whom the parties agree should proceed to voir
dire.
So, subtracting those out from the ones that the Court
sent, we would move the following onto the agreed to not return
list: 23, 114, 215, 257, 338, 420, 422, 542 and 561.
And then I also received in that letter or e-mail that
the defense wishes to modify its previous strikes, it indicated
it wanted to move three from the agreed to proceed to voir dire
list to the defense objects to proceeding to voir dire list.
One of them, by my count, was already on the agreed to
strike. That was number 92. So the two new ones that the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00008247
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document