DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg
701 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
701 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues that 'Juror No. 50' lacks legal standing and has no right to intervene in a criminal case. The filing references several legal precedents, including Cunningham v. Shoop and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, to discuss juror bias and testimony, ultimately concluding that established precedent, such as in United States v. Stoerr, prevents a non-party from having a judicially recognized interest in a defendant's prosecution. The document also notes that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer a questionnaire, having later publicly admitted to being a victim of sexual assault.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Cunningham | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the case Cunningham v. Shoop.
|
| Shoop | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the case Cunningham v. Shoop.
|
| Pena-Rodriguez | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the case Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
A juror who allegedly did not truthfully answer a questionnaire, has publicly admitted to being a victim of sexual as...
|
| Stoerr | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the case United States v. Stoerr.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Juror No. 50 seeks to intervene in a criminal matter.
Juror No. 50 publicly admitted he is a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a party in the case Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a party in the case United States v. Stoerr.
|
Relationships (1)
Juror No. 50 served on a jury for the court and is now seeking to intervene in the legal proceedings, arguing they have a right to do so, which the document refutes.
Key Quotes (4)
"possible for Cunningham to prove that [the juror] was actually biased without relying on juror testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)"Source
— Cunningham v. Shoop, 6th Cir.
(Cited as precedent for granting habeas relief on a juror bias claim.)
DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg
Quote #1
"Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee."Source
— Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
(Cited as a comparison case regarding exceptions to the no-impeachment rule for juror testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg
Quote #2
"it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters...."Source
— Juror No. 50
(Argument made by Juror No. 50 in a memo seeking to intervene.)
DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg
Quote #3
"the long line of precedent hold[ing] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant’s prosecution."Source
— Legal Precedent (United States v. Stoerr)
(Cited as the legal principle that contradicts Juror No. 50's claim for intervention.)
DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,882 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 58 of 66
claim. See Cunningham v. Shoop, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 92594, at *14-15 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022) (granting habeas relief as to juror bias claim because it is “possible for Cunningham to prove that [the juror] was actually biased without relying on juror testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)”); compare Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (“Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.”). Without relying on juror testimony, it is already clear that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer the questionnaire; Juror No. 50 has publicly admitted he is a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse.
As for identifying the other juror who was also a victim of sexual assault and abuse, the Court and parties can identify the juror without eliciting testimony about what was said during deliberations. The remaining eleven jurors can be asked, under oath, whether their answer to question 48 is correct and whether they have been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. Presumably the second juror will self-identify.
III. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene.
A. Juror No. 50 lacks standing.
Juror No. 50 seeks to intervene suggesting that “it is indisputable that precedent supports intervention by interested third parties in criminal matters....” Memo. at 8. This claim is not supported by “the long line of precedent hold[ing] that a non-party lacks a judicially cognizable interest in a defendant’s prosecution.” United States v. Stoerr, 695
51
DOJ-OGR-00009059
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document