DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
875 KB
Extraction Summary
13
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
5
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
875 KB
Summary
This legal document page argues that a new trial is warranted when a biased juror is seated, regardless of whether the juror's false answers during voir dire were deliberate or inadvertent. It cites several Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases, including McDonough, Langford, and Leonard, to support this interpretation and refutes the government's contrary reading of these precedents. The argument centers on the idea that the key issue is juror bias, not the intent behind a juror's dishonesty.
People (13)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| McDonough | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the subject of a legal case and its interpretation regarding juror dishonesty and bias.
|
| Langford | Party in a legal case |
Party in the case United States v. Langford, cited for the requirement of a new trial when a biased juror is seated.
|
| Blackmun, J. | Justice |
Cited for his concurring opinion in McDonough, which was joined by other justices.
|
| Smith | Party in a legal case |
Party in the case Smith v. Phillips, cited by Justice Blackmun.
|
| Phillips | Party in a legal case |
Party in the case Smith v. Phillips, cited by Justice Blackmun.
|
| O'Connor, J. | Justice |
Cited for her concurring opinion in McDonough and for joining Justice Blackmun's opinion.
|
| Brennan, J. | Justice |
Cited for his concurring opinion in McDonough and his reasoning adopted in the Langford case.
|
| Leonard | Party in a legal case |
Party in the case Leonard v. United States, cited for reversing a conviction based on implied bias.
|
| Stevens, J. | Justice |
Mentioned as having joined Justice Blackmun's opinion in McDonough.
|
| Marshall, J. | Justice |
Mentioned as sharing a view with Justice Brennan and joining his opinion.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Subject of a motion |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding her reliance on legal precedent in her motion, which the government allegedly misch...
|
| Rehnquist, J. | Justice |
Mentioned in a footnote as the author of the McDonough majority opinion.
|
| Zerka | Party in a legal case |
Party in a case cited in a footnote for counting the votes in the McDonough decision.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Mentioned as the court that held in United States v. Langford that a new trial is required for a biased juror.
|
| United States | Government |
Party in the cases United States v. Langford and Leonard v. United States.
|
Timeline (4 events)
1964
The Leonard v. United States case, which reversed a conviction based on implied bias of prospective jurors.
1988
The McDonough case, which is being interpreted regarding juror dishonesty and bias.
1993
The United States v. Langford case, where the Second Circuit held a new trial is required for a biased juror.
Second Circuit
Relationships (5)
Justice Blackmun
→
Professional
→
Justice Stevens
The document states that Justice Blackmun's words "were joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor".
Justice Blackmun
→
Professional
→
Justice O'Connor
The document states that Justice Blackmun's words "were joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor".
Justice Blackmun
→
Professional
→
Justice Brennan
The document states that Justice Blackmun "expressed a view shared by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall".
Justice Blackmun
→
Professional
→
Justice Marshall
The document states that Justice Blackmun "expressed a view shared by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall".
Justice Brennan
→
Professional
→
Justice Marshall
The document states in a footnote that Justice Brennan was "(joined by Justice Marshall)".
Key Quotes (4)
"a juror’s dishonesty is not a predicate to obtaining a new trial. The focus is on bias"Source
— Interpretation of McDonough (1988)
(Used to state a legal principle that is then contrasted with the main argument of the text.)
DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
Quote #1
"We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate. . . ."Source
— United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993)
(Quoted to show the Second Circuit's interpretation of the McDonough test, applying it to both inadvertent and deliberate misstatements.)
DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
Quote #2
"regardless of whether a juror’s answer is honest or dishonest, it remains within a trial court’s option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-"Source
— Justice Blackmun
(Quoted to describe the view of five justices on the trial court's discretion in matters of juror bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
Quote #3
"govern[s] not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate."Source
— Justice Brennan's reasoning in McDonough, as quoted in Langford
(Quoted in a footnote to support the argument that the McDonough decision covers both inadvertent and deliberate nondisclosures by jurors.)
DOJ-OGR-00009884.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,632 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 32
1988) (interpreting McDonough and holding that “a juror’s dishonesty is not a predicate to
obtaining a new trial. The focus is on bias”). To the contrary, as five justices recognized in
McDonough and as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Langford, a new trial is required
when a biased juror is seated even if the juror’s false voir dire answers were the result of
inadvertence rather than the product of a deliberate effort. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57
(Blackmun, J., concurring (citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-16 (1982)); id. at 220-24
(O’Connor, J., concurring)); id. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); United States
v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (“We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as
governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that
were deliberate. . . .”).5 See also Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544 (1964) (per curiam)
(reversing conviction based on implied bias and holding that prospective jurors who had heard
the trial court announce the defendant’s guilty verdict in the first trial should be automatically
disqualified from sitting on a second trial on similar charges). In Justice Blackmun’s words,
which were joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor and expressed a view shared by Justice
Brennan and Justice Marshall, “regardless of whether a juror’s answer is honest or dishonest, it
remains within a trial court’s option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-
obtaining a new trial. The focus is on bias”). To the contrary, as five justices recognized in
McDonough and as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Langford, a new trial is required
when a biased juror is seated even if the juror’s false voir dire answers were the result of
inadvertence rather than the product of a deliberate effort. McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57
(Blackmun, J., concurring (citing Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215-16 (1982)); id. at 220-24
(O’Connor, J., concurring)); id. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); United States
v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (“We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as
governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that
were deliberate. . . .”).5 See also Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544 (1964) (per curiam)
(reversing conviction based on implied bias and holding that prospective jurors who had heard
the trial court announce the defendant’s guilty verdict in the first trial should be automatically
disqualified from sitting on a second trial on similar charges). In Justice Blackmun’s words,
which were joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor and expressed a view shared by Justice
Brennan and Justice Marshall, “regardless of whether a juror’s answer is honest or dishonest, it
remains within a trial court’s option, in determining whether a jury was biased, to order a post-
5 The government implies something deceitful by Ms. Maxwell’s reliance on Justice
Blackmun’s and Justice Brennan’s concurrences, noting that six justices joined Justice
Rehnquist’s McDonough majority opinion. Resp. at 14 & n.8.
Contrary to the government’s implication, however, Ms. Maxwell’s motion accurately
described McDonough and its holding, noting that Justice Blackmun (joined by Justices Stevens
and O’Connor) “concurred” in the majority opinion while Justice Brennan (joined by Justice
Marshall) “concurred in judgment.” Mot. at 26. Most importantly, any way you look at it, five
votes is five votes. Zerka, 49 F.3d at 1186, n.7 (counting the votes in McDonough and explaining
the holding). And in McDonough, as the Court recognized in Langford when it quoted and
adopted Justice Brennan’s reasoning, the McDonough decision “govern[s] not only inadvertent
nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.” 990 F.2d at 68
(citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).
Blackmun’s and Justice Brennan’s concurrences, noting that six justices joined Justice
Rehnquist’s McDonough majority opinion. Resp. at 14 & n.8.
Contrary to the government’s implication, however, Ms. Maxwell’s motion accurately
described McDonough and its holding, noting that Justice Blackmun (joined by Justices Stevens
and O’Connor) “concurred” in the majority opinion while Justice Brennan (joined by Justice
Marshall) “concurred in judgment.” Mot. at 26. Most importantly, any way you look at it, five
votes is five votes. Zerka, 49 F.3d at 1186, n.7 (counting the votes in McDonough and explaining
the holding). And in McDonough, as the Court recognized in Langford when it quoted and
adopted Justice Brennan’s reasoning, the McDonough decision “govern[s] not only inadvertent
nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.” 990 F.2d at 68
(citing McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).
10
DOJ-OGR-00009884
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document