DOJ-OGR-00008967.jpg

of its national leadership, because of the exceptional importance and potential precedential value
of this Court's decision, in a case that has attracted international attention, about whether a
potential juror's false answers about an issue integral to any juror's ability to be fair and impartial
will require a new trial. We are deeply concerned about the effect that a negative answer to this
question would have, not only for the rights of the defendant in this case, but upon future
defendants, jurors and courts.
4. NACDL is made up of members who routinely try criminal cases in federal and
state courts throughout the United States. We know from our experiences that the effectiveness
of the voir dire process in eliciting truthful answers to questions designed to weed out biased or
otherwise unqualified jurors is a fundamental structural prerequisite for ensuring our clients,
often the most vulnerable and scorned members of society, receive a fair trial. NACDL members
have conducted numerous voir dire examinations, including in many high-profile or sensitive
criminal cases.
5. With the experience of its members as a guide, NACDL believes it can provide the
Court with additional perspective concerning the issues that have been raised in the Defendant's
post-verdict motion. We are seriously concerned that where a juror gives a false answer to a
question that is crucially important in assessing that juror's ability to be a fair and impartial juror,
the structural integrity of the trial has been lost regardless of whether the false answer was given
deliberately. We believe, as we will discuss, that such a conclusion is consistent with existing
case law.
6. While a finding that the misstatement was intentional would make it even more
certain that such a juror had an agenda and/or was biased, it should not be required where, as
2
DOJ-OGR-00008967