DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
644 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
5
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
644 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the pre-trial voir dire process concerning Juror No. 50. It outlines the defense counsel's unsuccessful motions to conduct their own voir dire and to have the Court ask jurors specific questions about being victims of crime. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's negative responses to questions about whether he had been a victim of sexual assault or would have difficulty assessing witness credibility, which are key points in a legal argument.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Mentioned as answering questions during voir dire, specifically denying being a victim of sexual assault or having di...
|
| defense counsel | Legal Representative |
Mentioned as having moved the Court to permit attorney-conducted voir dire and proposing specific questions for juror...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Court | judiciary |
Mentioned as the body that was moved by defense counsel, conducted its own voir dire, and declined to permit attorney...
|
| the government | government agency |
Mentioned as objecting to questions proposed by the defense counsel for the voir dire process.
|
Timeline (5 events)
Prior to trial, defense counsel moved the Court to permit limited, attorney-conducted voir dire of potential jurors.
Prior to trial, defense counsel proposed that the Court individually ask each juror specific questions about being a victim of a crime or a sexual crime.
The government objected to the questions proposed by defense counsel, calling them duplicative.
Juror No. 50 underwent voir dire, answering questions about his ability to assess credibility and his personal history regarding sexual assault.
Relationships (2)
The document shows an adversarial legal relationship, with the defense counsel making proposals and the government objecting to them within the context of a court case.
The defense counsel made motions and proposals to the Court, which the Court then ruled on, demonstrating the standard relationship between legal counsel and the judiciary.
Key Quotes (5)
"No"Source
— Juror No. 50
(Answer to Question 47 regarding difficulty assessing the credibility of alleged victims of sexual assault.)
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
Quote #1
"no"Source
— Juror No. 50
(Answer to Question 48 asking if he had ever been the victim of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault.)
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
Quote #2
"Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime?"Source
— defense counsel
(A question proposed by defense counsel for the Court to ask jurors during voir dire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
Quote #3
"Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a sexual crime?"Source
— defense counsel
(A question proposed by defense counsel for the Court to ask jurors during voir dire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
Quote #4
"duplicative of questions included in the proposed voir dire"Source
— the government
(The government's reason for objecting to the questions proposed by defense counsel.)
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,709 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 66
● Question 47, “No,” Juror No. 50 would not have any difficulty assessing the credibility of alleged victims of sexual assault or abuse just as he would assess the credibility of any other witness.
● Finally, and most importantly, Juror No. 50 answered “no” when asked in Question 48 if he had ever been the victim of victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault, including actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.
C. Juror No. 50’s voir dire
Prior to trial, defense counsel moved the Court to permit limited, attorney-conducted voir dire of potential jurors. Doc. 342. Defense counsel explained that given the nature of the allegations, the stakes involved, and the omnipresent media coverage, attorney-conducted voir dire to supplement the Court’s voir dire was necessary to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Id. at 7-15. Defense counsel pointed specifically to the potential that certain jurors could not be fair if they had been a victim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. Id. at 9-10. The Court declined to permit attorney-conducted voir dire. TR 10/21/2021, p 8.
Prior to trial, defense counsel also proposed that the Court individually ask each juror in person several questions including "Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime?" and "Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of a sexual crime?" Doc. 367-1 at 14. The government objected that the questions were "duplicative of questions included in the proposed voir dire" and should not be asked
6
DOJ-OGR-00009014
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document