DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
686 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
686 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that there is no evidence Juror 50 deliberately lied about his social media use, but acknowledges an inconsistency between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to a questionnaire. The Government agrees that a limited evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine if the juror answered falsely and whether it was intentional.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror whose honesty during voir dire is being questioned by the defendant regarding social media use and answers on...
|
| Stewart |
Mentioned in a case citation (Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303) related to the legal standard for challenging a juror.
|
|
| Greer |
Mentioned in a case citation (United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158) related to the legal standard for a hypothetical ...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| company |
Mentioned in the context of Juror 50's social media activity and the ability to delete the app without deleting the a...
|
|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, arguing against the defendant's motion but agreeing a limited hearing is warranted.
|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body being asked to rule on the defendant's motion and determine the validity of a challenge to a juror.
|
| Guidingtech.com | company |
A website cited in a footnote as a source of information about uninstalling the Instagram app.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government proposes a limited evidentiary hearing to determine if Juror 50 answered Question 48 falsely.
Relationships (2)
The defendant is challenging the truthfulness of Juror 50's statements made during jury selection (voir dire).
The Government is arguing against the defendant's motion in this legal filing.
Key Quotes (3)
"[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies."Source
— Juror 50
(Describing the content of his Instagram use, as recorded in a court transcript.)
DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
Quote #1
"The second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."Source
— Defendant's brief
(Quoted from the defendant's legal brief arguing for a new trial or hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
Quote #2
"the district court must ‘determine if it would have granted the hypothetical challenge.’"Source
— Stewart (case law)
(A quote from a legal precedent (Stewart, citing Greer) outlining the standard a court must apply in this situation.)
DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,982 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 21 of 49
one can delete the Instagram app from one’s phone without deleting the account at all.12 And the defendant’s screenshots show that Juror 50 was not hiding anything: His Instagram use did appear, as he stated, to consist of “[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies.” (Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 133; see Def. Mem. at 20). There is no basis for concluding that Juror 50 deliberately lied during voir dire about his social media activity.
In sum, the defendant’s argument that the Court should grant her motion based purely on unsworn public statements by Juror 50 is unpersuasive. That said, given the apparent inconsistency between Juror 50’s public statements that he was a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to Question 48 on the questionnaire, the Government believes that a limited evidentiary hearing on that subject is warranted to determine whether he answered Question 48 falsely and, if so, whether that answer was deliberate or inadvertent. The Government addresses the proper scope of that hearing in Part II, infra.
2. The Defendant Has Failed to Satisfy the Second Prong of McDonough
a. The Second Prong of McDonough Requires the Court to Determine Whether It Would Have Granted a Hypothetical Challenge
The defendant’s brief states: “The second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” (Def. Mem. at 29 (citing Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303)). This omits an important aspect of the relevant standard, which provides that in order to make that decision, “the district court must ‘determine if it would have granted the hypothetical challenge.’” Stewart, 433 F.3d at 304 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002)). Critically, that determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and “‘[t]here
12 See, e.g., https://www.guidingtech.com/what-happens-when-you-uninstall-instagram-from-phone/.
19
DOJ-OGR-00009819
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document