DOJ-OGR-00005326.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 367 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 35
DOJ-OGR-00005326

-4-

Juror ID: __________

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

BACKGROUND

Name: __________
Title: ☐ Dr. ☐ Mr. ☐ Mrs. ☐ Ms. ☐ Miss
Age: __________
Sex/Gender Identity: __________
Your place of birth: __________
Residence: City/Town __________ County __________ Neighborhood __________
How long have you lived in that area? __________
What is your marital status? ☐ Single ☐ Married ☐ Separated ☐ Divorced ☐ Widowed ☐ Live with domestic partner/significant other
Any prior marriages? ☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, how many? __________
What is your current job status? (please check) ☐ Employed full-time ☐ Employed part-time ☐ Self-employed ☐ Homemaker ☐ Unemployed/laid-off ☐ Disabled ☐ Retired ☐ Full-time student (please state area of study) __________ ☐ Other (please describe) __________
What is your occupation? (If you are not currently employed, please describe your most recent prior employment.) __________
By whom are (were) you employed? __________
How long have you worked (did you work) there? __________

Commented [A3]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The defendant has proposed the language in green color font in this questionnaire.

Commented [A4R3]: DEFENDANT: The defense proposes that these questions should be more appropriately asked in the questionnaire rather than voir dire. The Government objects but it was the Government, in the most recent high-profile federal cases, who included the very same background information questions in the written questionnaire. See United States v. Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos), 18 Cr. 258 (EDJ) (N.D. Cal.); United States v. Robert Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY); United States v. Keith Rainier (Nxivm), 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (EDNY).

Commented [A5R3]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: As noted above, the Government does not believe these questions should be included in the written questionnaire because these questions will not provide a basis for a for-cause challenge. The Government further submits that potential jurors should not write down their names on the written questionnaire. The defendant cites no case for the proposition that the defense has a right to an extended period of time to research potential jurors. That is not the law. “[T]he purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case.” United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) (citations omitted). “[S]o long as the court conducts a careful voir dire designed to uncover any bias as to the issues or the defendants,” the defendants’ rights are not infringed. United States v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102, 1116 (2d Cir. 1995).

Commented [A6R3]: DEFENDANT: The defense proposes that these questions should be more appropriately asked in the questionnaire rather than voir dire. The Government objects but it was the Government, in the most recent high-profile federal cases, who included the very same background information questions in the written questionnaire. See United States v. Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos), 18 Cr. 258 (EDJ) (N.D. Cal.); United States v. Robert Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY); United States v. Keith Rainier (Nxivm), 18 Cr. 204 (NGG) (EDNY). In addition to saving immense time, it provides a good-faith foundation for conducting research on the jurors to confirm truthfulness and/or uncover bias. In addition, the verdict in one of longest financial fraud trials in SDNY was overturned due to jury deceit. See United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F.Supp.2d 445 (SDNY 2012).