DOJ-OGR-00009756.jpg
412 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
412 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated January 19, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial because at least one juror, identified as Juror No. 50, was dishonest during the jury selection (voir dire) process. The filing requests that the Court either vacate the jury's verdict and order a new trial, or alternatively, hold an evidentiary hearing to question all twelve jurors.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the individual whose jury and trial are the subject of the document. It is argued her right to a fair tr...
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Identified as a juror who allegedly did not honor their obligation to give truthful answers during voir dire.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Judicial body |
Referred to as the entity that conducted the voir dire process, whose verdict is being challenged, and which is being...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Ms. Maxwell's trial, which resulted in a jury verdict that is now being challenged.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of the United States Constitution, which guarantees a fair and impartial jury.
|
Relationships (1)
Juror No. 50 served on the jury for Ms. Maxwell's trial. The document alleges this juror's dishonesty compromised the fairness of the trial.
Key Quotes (3)
"confidence"Source
— The Court
(The Court expressed 'confidence' that its voir dire process would identify dishonest jurors.)
DOJ-OGR-00009756.jpg
Quote #1
"smoke out"Source
— The Court (describing its process)
(Describing the intended effect of the voir dire process to identify a dishonest juror.)
DOJ-OGR-00009756.jpg
Quote #2
"only truthful answers"Source
— Unknown (cited as an obligation)
(The obligation that Juror No. 50 and at least one other juror allegedly failed to honor.)
DOJ-OGR-00009756.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (924 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 64 of 66
For its part, this Court expressed “confidence” that its voir dire process would “smoke out” a juror who was dishonest. Ms. Maxwell relied on the Court’s process. And the Court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled: that potential jurors would carefully and honestly engage in voir dire.
Unfortunately, we now know that Juror No. 50 (and at least one other juror) did not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.” Ex. 1, p 3. They are no longer entitled to the presumption of honesty.
Because Ms. Maxwell’s jury was not the fair and impartial one guaranteed her by the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new trial. In the alternative, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and examine all twelve jurors.
Dated: January 19, 2022
57
DOJ-OGR-00009756
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document