DOJ-OGR-00020960.jpg
637 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
637 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, analyzes the testimony of a prospective juror, Juror 50. It argues that the juror was distracted by a recent romantic breakup and the busy environment of the courthouse, which affected his focus while completing the jury questionnaire. The document asserts that the juror's personal history of sexual abuse was not a primary consideration for him at the time, and that he did not believe he would be selected for the jury anyway.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body overseeing the case, providing instructions to jurors, and whose proceedings are referenced.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the prospective juror waited and completed the questionnaire.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"I didn’t have a phone, I didn’t have a book, I was sitting there twiddling my thumbs thinking about the break up that just happened a few weeks prior and sitting in my feelings and not very focused."Source
— Juror 50
(Describing his distracted state of mind while waiting in the courthouse during jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00020960.jpg
Quote #1
"just got out of a relationship and I didn’t want to see anything regarding them"Source
— Juror 50
(A statement made during oral voir dire on Nov. 16, 2021, consistent with his later testimony about being distracted by a breakup.)
DOJ-OGR-00020960.jpg
Quote #2
"felt rushed"Source
— Juror 50
(Describing his feeling as more potential jurors completed their questionnaires, motivating him to finish quickly.)
DOJ-OGR-00020960.jpg
Quote #3
"sheer volume of people that were there"Source
— Juror 50
(His reason for concluding he would not be selected as a juror, leading him to not proceed with 'diligence'.)
DOJ-OGR-00020960.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,221 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page134 of 221
A-334
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 17 of 40
A-334
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 17 of 40
by several factors, among them the several hours that he had to wait in the courthouse’s security
line, to wait in the room to hear the Court’s instructional video, and then to begin answering
questions. And while he waited, he says, he was distracted by his thoughts on the recent end of a
romantic relationship. Id. at 14 (“I didn’t have a phone, I didn’t have a book, I was sitting there
twiddling my thumbs thinking about the break up that just happened a few weeks prior and
sitting in my feelings and not very focused.”). That explanation is not only consistent with his
other hearing testimony, but also with his sworn statements months earlier at oral voir dire. See
Nov. 16, 2021 Voir Dire Tr. at 133 (stating that he “just got out of a relationship and I didn’t
want to see anything regarding them”).
Distractions continued, and increased, as he neared the end of the questionnaire. Juror 50
testified that he was seated near the table where prospective jurors dropped off their completed
questionnaires. As more potential jurors completed their questionnaires, the noise and bustle at
that table increased. And as more potential jurors completed their questionnaires, he “felt
rushed” to finish so that he would not be the last to turn in a questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 18.
Moreover, the Court credits Juror 50’s candid admission that he was not concerned with
following the Court’s instructions, and did not proceed with “diligence,” because he had
concluded that he would not be selected as a juror given the “sheer volume of people that were
there.” Id. at 13, 18; see also id. at 40.
This explanation coheres with Juror 50’s testimony that his sexual abuse history was not
a salient or front-of-mind consideration as he completed the questionnaire. He repeatedly
testified that he does not often think about his sexual abuse. See, e.g., id. at 16, 22. The
summary of the charges, which do not use the terms “abuse” or “assault” but explained that the
Defendant had been charged with a total of six counts that involved “travel to engage in criminal
line, to wait in the room to hear the Court’s instructional video, and then to begin answering
questions. And while he waited, he says, he was distracted by his thoughts on the recent end of a
romantic relationship. Id. at 14 (“I didn’t have a phone, I didn’t have a book, I was sitting there
twiddling my thumbs thinking about the break up that just happened a few weeks prior and
sitting in my feelings and not very focused.”). That explanation is not only consistent with his
other hearing testimony, but also with his sworn statements months earlier at oral voir dire. See
Nov. 16, 2021 Voir Dire Tr. at 133 (stating that he “just got out of a relationship and I didn’t
want to see anything regarding them”).
Distractions continued, and increased, as he neared the end of the questionnaire. Juror 50
testified that he was seated near the table where prospective jurors dropped off their completed
questionnaires. As more potential jurors completed their questionnaires, the noise and bustle at
that table increased. And as more potential jurors completed their questionnaires, he “felt
rushed” to finish so that he would not be the last to turn in a questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 18.
Moreover, the Court credits Juror 50’s candid admission that he was not concerned with
following the Court’s instructions, and did not proceed with “diligence,” because he had
concluded that he would not be selected as a juror given the “sheer volume of people that were
there.” Id. at 13, 18; see also id. at 40.
This explanation coheres with Juror 50’s testimony that his sexual abuse history was not
a salient or front-of-mind consideration as he completed the questionnaire. He repeatedly
testified that he does not often think about his sexual abuse. See, e.g., id. at 16, 22. The
summary of the charges, which do not use the terms “abuse” or “assault” but explained that the
Defendant had been charged with a total of six counts that involved “travel to engage in criminal
17
DOJ-OGR-00020960
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document