DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg
764 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
764 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against a defendant's claim that Juror 50 intentionally lied on a juror questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse in order to serve on the jury. The filing contends that Juror 50's other disclosures, such as his knowledge of the defendant's connection to Epstein, are inconsistent with an intent to deceive. It cites legal precedents to support the idea that juror questionnaires should be viewed in context and suggests the matter of credibility should be resolved in a formal court hearing.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The subject of the legal argument, accused by the defendant of lying to serve on the jury.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in connection with the defendant, about whom Juror 50 had read.
|
|
| Juror 50’s counsel | Counsel |
Representing Juror 50, mentioned in a footnote as stating Juror 50 does not recall answering certain questions.
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The party suggesting that Juror 50 deliberately lied to serve on the jury.
|
| defense counsel | Defense Counsel |
Mentioned in a cited case (Perez) as the party to whom a hypothetical juror would expose themselves.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the body that can question Juror 50 at a hearing to assess his credibility.
|
| 9th Cir. | government agency |
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, cited in the case Dyer v. Calderon.
|
| D. Vt. | government agency |
The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, cited in the case United States v. Fell.
|
Relationships (3)
The document mentions the defendant's "connection to Epstein" which Juror 50 had read about.
Juror 50 served on the jury in the defendant's case. The defendant is now challenging Juror 50's truthfulness during jury selection.
Juror 50's counsel filed a motion to intervene on his behalf.
Key Quotes (4)
"[W]e must be tolerant, as jurors may forget incidents long buried in their minds, misunderstand a question or bend the truth a bit to avoid embarrassment."Source
— Dyer v. Calderon
(Cited as legal precedent regarding juror memory and truthfulness.)
DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg
Quote #1
"[T]he written juror questionnaires must be viewed in context. The long questionnaire in particular consisted of 75 questions not including sub-parts."Source
— United States v. Fell
(Cited as legal precedent regarding the interpretation of juror questionnaires.)
DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg
Quote #2
"I find it improbable that a juror who lied on voir dire in order to be empaneled on a jury in an age discrimination case to avenge himself against a discriminatory employer who was not a party to the lawsuit would reveal this motivation after rendering a verdict. If this had been the juror’s intent, there was no reason why he would expose himself to defense counsel immediately following the verdict."Source
— Perez
(Cited from a case to argue that it is illogical for someone who lies to get on a jury to immediately expose themselves.)
DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg
Quote #3
"does not recall answering questions [in the questionnaire] regarding his prior experience with sexual assault."Source
— Juror 50’s counsel
(A statement from a motion to intervene, explaining Juror 50's position.)
DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,330 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 19 of 49
which are relatively easily understood by lawyers and judges.”); Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[W]e must be tolerant, as jurors may forget incidents long buried in their minds, misunderstand a question or bend the truth a bit to avoid embarrassment.”); United States v. Fell, No. 01 Cr. 12, 2014 WL 3697810, at *13 (D. Vt. July 24, 2014) (“[T]he written juror questionnaires must be viewed in context. The long questionnaire in particular consisted of 75 questions not including sub-parts.”).11 And, in any event, the credibility of Juror 50’s explanation as to why, if he was indeed a victim of sexual abuse, he answered this question in the negative is properly resolved not based on a review of unsworn public statements, but at a hearing at which the Court can question him on this subject and assess his credibility.
Furthermore, the defendant’s suggestion that Juror 50 deliberately lied in order to serve on the jury is undermined by several aspects of Juror 50’s conduct. For example, when answering the questions about exposure to pretrial publicity, Juror 50 disclosed that he had read about the defendant and her connection to Epstein. If a juror was willing to lie about sexual abuse to ensure that he was seated on the jury, he would, presumably, have lied about other potentially disqualifying facts, too. Similarly, if Juror 50 deliberately lied under penalty of perjury in order to serve on the jury, it would make little sense for him to immediately publicize that fact, thus exposing himself to criminal liability. See Perez, 1997 WL 403458, at *6 (“I find it improbable that a juror who lied on voir dire in order to be empaneled on a jury in an age discrimination case to avenge himself against a discriminatory employer who was not a party to the lawsuit would reveal this motivation after rendering a verdict. If this had been the juror’s intent, there was no reason why he would expose himself to defense counsel immediately following the verdict.”).
11 Indeed, Juror 50’s counsel, in his motion to intervene, discussed infra at Part III, wrote that Juror 50 “does not recall answering questions [in the questionnaire] regarding his prior experience with sexual assault.” (Juror 50 Mem. at 5).
17
DOJ-OGR-00009817
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document