DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
720 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
7
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
720 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrow questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and protect the integrity of jury deliberations, citing numerous legal precedents where courts have similarly controlled such inquiries. The Government also argues against the defendant's request for "pre-hearing discovery" and calling other jurors as witnesses.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a proposed questioning by the Court regarding potential bias.
|
| Juror No. 5 | Juror |
Mentioned in the cited case Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T&N as having been examined by the Court under oath.
|
| Calbas | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case Calbas, 821 F.2d at 896, as precedent for a district court conducting an examination of a juror.
|
| Loliscio | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case Loliscio v. Goord, 263 F.3d 178, as precedent regarding the scope of post-verdict inquiries.
|
| Goord | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case Loliscio v. Goord, 263 F.3d 178, as precedent regarding the scope of post-verdict inquiries.
|
| Shakur | Defendant in a legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Shakur, 723 F. Supp. 925, as precedent for a district court examining a juror in c...
|
| Greer | Defendant in a legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Greer, 998 F. Supp. 399, as precedent.
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The party submitting the legal argument that the Court should conduct the questioning of Juror 50.
|
| Second Circuit | judicial |
A U.S. Court of Appeals cited as legal authority in several cases (Calbas, Loliscio v. Goord, United States v. Shakur).
|
| Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. | company |
A party in the cited case Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T&N.
|
| T&N | company |
A party in the cited case Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T&N.
|
| United States | government agency |
A party in the cited cases United States v. Shakur and United States v. Greer.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | judicial |
Abbreviation for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court in the cited cases Chase Ma...
|
| D. Vt. | judicial |
Abbreviation for the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the court in the cited case United States v. Gr...
|
Timeline (2 events)
1997-04-28
Examination of Juror No. 5 under oath in the presence of counsel for both parties, as cited in the case Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T&N.
S.D.N.Y.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced as S.D.N.Y. in case citations.
|
|
|
Referenced as D. Vt. in a case citation.
|
Relationships (2)
The Government is submitting arguments against the defendant's request for "pre-hearing discovery".
The document argues that the Court should conduct the questioning of Juror 50.
Key Quotes (4)
"wisely refrained from allowing the inquiry to become an adversarial evidentiary hearing, so as to minimize intrusion on the jury’s deliberations"Source
— Second Circuit (in Calbas case)
(Quoted to support the argument that the court should control juror inquiries to protect the jury process.)
DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
Quote #1
"[T]he scope of such a post-verdict inquiry, and the extent, if any, to which the parties may participate therein are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court."Source
— Second Circuit (in Loliscio v. Goord case)
(Quoted to argue that the trial court has discretion over how to conduct post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court examined Juror No. 5 under oath in the presence of counsel for both parties, after both parties were given the opportunity to submit proposed questions. To protect the juror from harassment or embarrassment, the Court personally conducted the questioning of the juror."Source
— S.D.N.Y. Court (in Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T&N case)
(Cited as an example of a court taking protective measures while questioning a juror.)
DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
Quote #3
"All of the jurors were"Source
— D. Vt. Court (in United States v. Greer case)
(An incomplete quote cited as part of a legal argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,150 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 34 of 49
48, and, if so, (2) whether the Court would have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had accurately responded to that question, i.e., whether he was actually biased.
For the reasons set forth below, the Government submits that: (1) the Court should conduct the questioning; (2) the questions for Juror 50 should be narrowly tailored; (3) there is no basis to call any other jurors as witnesses; and (4) the defendant’s request for “pre-hearing discovery” should be denied.
1. The Court Should Conduct the Questioning
First, as noted, given the dangers of harassment and embarrassment presented by juror inquiries, the Court has the power and duty to closely control the proceedings. The Court can— and courts in this District frequently do—choose to personally question the jurors, often giving the parties an opportunity to propose to the Court questions for the Court to ask. See, e.g., Calbas, 821 F.2d at 896 (district court conducted examination of juror, and Second Circuit concluded that the district court “wisely refrained from allowing the inquiry to become an adversarial evidentiary hearing, so as to minimize intrusion on the jury’s deliberations”); Loliscio v. Goord, 263 F.3d 178, 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (“[T]he scope of such a post-verdict inquiry, and the extent, if any, to which the parties may participate therein are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”); Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. T&N, No. 87 Civ. 4436 (JGK), 1997 WL 221203, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 1997) (“The Court examined Juror No. 5 under oath in the presence of counsel for both parties, after both parties were given the opportunity to submit proposed questions. To protect the juror from harassment or embarrassment, the Court personally conducted the questioning of the juror.”); United States v. Shakur, 723 F. Supp. 925, 928 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (district court examined juror in camera, after permitting counsel to file suggested questions), aff’d 888 F.2d 234 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Greer, 998 F. Supp. 399, 404 (D. Vt. 1998) (“All of the jurors were
32
DOJ-OGR-00009153
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document