DOJ-OGR-00009138.jpg
738 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
738 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing arguing for the credibility of Juror 50 against a defendant's challenge. The filing contends that any inconsistencies in the juror's questionnaire answers should be assessed in a formal hearing, not based on public statements, and cites legal precedents suggesting jurors can make honest mistakes. It further argues that the juror's disclosure of having read about the defendant's connection to Epstein and the illogical nature of deliberately lying only to immediately risk exposure suggest the juror did not intentionally mislead the court.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The central figure of this document page, whose credibility and conduct during jury selection are being discussed.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in connection with the defendant, about whom Juror 50 had read.
|
|
| Dyer | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in the cited case Dyer v. Calderon.
|
| Calderon | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in the cited case Dyer v. Calderon.
|
| Fell | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in the cited case United States v. Fell.
|
| Perez | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in the cited case Perez, 1997 WL 403458.
|
| Juror 50’s counsel | Counsel |
Mentioned in a footnote as having written in a motion that Juror 50 did not recall answering certain questions.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
A party in the cited case United States v. Fell.
|
| 9th Cir. | government agency |
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which decided the cited case Dyer v. Calderon.
|
| D. Vt. | government agency |
The United States District Court for the District of Vermont, which decided the cited case United States v. Fell.
|
| The Court | government agency |
Refers to the court presiding over the current case, which can question Juror 50 at a hearing.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The voir dire process, during which a juror in the cited Perez case allegedly lied.
Relationships (2)
Juror 50 served on the jury for the defendant's case and disclosed that he had read about the defendant and her connection to Epstein.
The counsel represents Juror 50 in a motion to intervene and has made statements 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-00009138.jpg
Quote #1
"[T]he written juror questionnaires must be viewed in context."Source
— United States v. Fell
(Cited as legal precedent regarding the interpretation of juror questionnaires.)
DOJ-OGR-00009138.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, 1997 WL 403458
(Cited as a similar case to argue that it is unlikely Juror 50 would deliberately lie and then expose himself.)
DOJ-OGR-00009138.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 memory of the questionnaire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009138.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,199 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 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 [REDACTED] 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. [REDACTED] 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-00009138
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document