DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
632 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
632 KB
Summary
This document is a legal opinion discussing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Maxwell argued she was deprived of a fair trial because Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The document reviews the standard for abuse of discretion in denying such motions, emphasizing that new trials are granted sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Contends she was deprived of a constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury; filed a motion for a new trial.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Failed to accurately respond to questions related to his history of sexual abuse during jury selection.
|
| Rivas | Party in case citation |
Cited in Rivas v. Brattesani
|
| Brattesani | Party in case citation |
Cited in Rivas v. Brattesani
|
| Ferguson | Party in case citation |
Cited in United States v. Ferguson
|
| Sims | Party in case citation |
Cited in In re Sims
|
| Moon | Party in case citation |
Cited in United States v. Moon
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
Denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial; its decision is under review.
|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in United States v. Ferguson and United States v. Moon, cited as legal precedent.
|
| 2d Cir. | Judicial body |
Refers to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued the cited opinions.
|
| DOJ-OGR | Government agency |
Document identifier, likely Department of Justice - Office of General Counsel or similar.
|
Timeline (4 events)
A special evidentiary hearing was held regarding Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
The District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
A higher court is reviewing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The court of appeals that issued the cited opinions (2d Cir. 1996, 2d Cir. 2001, 2d Cir. 2008, 2d Cir. 1983).
|
Key Quotes (7)
"haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences."Source
— United States v. Moon
(Describing the reluctance of courts to question jurors post-verdict.)
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
Quote #1
"vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires"Source
— Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a)
(Stating the condition under which courts can grant a new trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
Quote #2
"sparingly"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
Quote #3
"the most extraordinary circumstances"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
Quote #4
"[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance."Source
— Rivas v. Brattesani
(Defining the standard for abuse of discretion.)
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
Quote #5
"abuse of discretion"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
Quote #6
"a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions."Source
— In re Sims
(Further defining 'abuse of discretion'.)
DOJ-OGR-00021894.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,737 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page17 of 26
3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying
Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial
Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial
Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right
to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately
respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as
part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special
evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a
new trial.
to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately
respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as
part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special
evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a
new trial.
We review a District Court's denial of a motion for a new trial for
abuse of discretion.²⁷ We have been extremely reluctant to “haul jurors
in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential
instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.”²⁸ While courts
can “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice
so requires,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so “sparingly” and
only in “the most extraordinary circumstances.”²⁹ A district court “has
abuse of discretion.²⁷ We have been extremely reluctant to “haul jurors
in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential
instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.”²⁸ While courts
can “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice
so requires,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so “sparingly” and
only in “the most extraordinary circumstances.”²⁹ A district court “has
²⁷ See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). “[W]e are mindful that a judge has
not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would
have made in the first instance.” United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001).
We have repeatedly explained that the term of art “abuse of discretion” includes errors of
law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or “a decision that cannot be located
within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would
have made in the first instance.” United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001).
We have repeatedly explained that the term of art “abuse of discretion” includes errors of
law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or “a decision that cannot be located
within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
²⁸ United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983).
²⁹ Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134.
17
DOJ-OGR-00021894
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document