DOJ-OGR-00010325.jpg
712 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
712 KB
Summary
This legal document discusses a case where a juror was questioned under oath and the penalty of perjury. The court inquired about the juror's answers and whether they were false. The document references Federal Rule of Evidence 606, Supreme Court, and Second Circuit law.
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | Court |
Supreme Court and Second Circuit law
|
| Second Circuit | Court |
Supreme Court and Second Circuit law
|
| McDonough Power Equip., Inc. | Company |
See McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 464 U.S. at 555-56
|
| Supreme Court | Court |
of the controlling Supreme Court decision, McDonough v. Greenwood
|
Key Quotes (1)
"for cause"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010325.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,092 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 2 of 40
questioned the juror under oath and under the penalty of perjury. The Court inquired about
whether his answers were false, his explanation for giving those answers, and how he would
have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided at the time of jury
selection. This inquiry was limited by Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits a juror
from testifying about the content of deliberations or his mental processes in evaluating the
evidence at trial. The rule embodies long-accepted federal law and is an important safeguard of
the integrity of the jury trial system. The hearing was further limited by Supreme Court and
Second Circuit law that permits inquiry only if there is clear and incontrovertible evidence of
potential misconduct by the juror.
Based on the hearing record, the questions before the Court are whether Juror 50 failed to
answer honestly a material question during jury selection, and whether, if he had provided a
correct response, the Court would have struck him "for cause" because he was biased.
Controlling law is clear that the question is not whether the Defendant would have chosen to
exercise one of her discretionary peremptory strikes against this juror had he accurately disclosed
his prior sexual abuse. It is only whether the Court would have struck him for cause due to
actual, implied, or inferred bias. See McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 464 U.S. at 555-56. The
limits on the nature of the post-trial inquiry serve the important interest in the finality of
judgments.
The Court concludes that the Defendant has failed to satisfy the demanding requirements
of the controlling Supreme Court decision, McDonough v. Greenwood. The Court finds Juror 50
testified credibly at the hearing. There are many reasons for that finding. He appeared to testify
frankly and honestly, even when the answers he gave were the cause of personal embarrassment
and regret. His incentive at the hearing was to testify truthfully or face criminal perjury charges.
2
DOJ-OGR-00010325
questioned the juror under oath and under the penalty of perjury. The Court inquired about
whether his answers were false, his explanation for giving those answers, and how he would
have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided at the time of jury
selection. This inquiry was limited by Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits a juror
from testifying about the content of deliberations or his mental processes in evaluating the
evidence at trial. The rule embodies long-accepted federal law and is an important safeguard of
the integrity of the jury trial system. The hearing was further limited by Supreme Court and
Second Circuit law that permits inquiry only if there is clear and incontrovertible evidence of
potential misconduct by the juror.
Based on the hearing record, the questions before the Court are whether Juror 50 failed to
answer honestly a material question during jury selection, and whether, if he had provided a
correct response, the Court would have struck him "for cause" because he was biased.
Controlling law is clear that the question is not whether the Defendant would have chosen to
exercise one of her discretionary peremptory strikes against this juror had he accurately disclosed
his prior sexual abuse. It is only whether the Court would have struck him for cause due to
actual, implied, or inferred bias. See McDonough Power Equip., Inc., 464 U.S. at 555-56. The
limits on the nature of the post-trial inquiry serve the important interest in the finality of
judgments.
The Court concludes that the Defendant has failed to satisfy the demanding requirements
of the controlling Supreme Court decision, McDonough v. Greenwood. The Court finds Juror 50
testified credibly at the hearing. There are many reasons for that finding. He appeared to testify
frankly and honestly, even when the answers he gave were the cause of personal embarrassment
and regret. His incentive at the hearing was to testify truthfully or face criminal perjury charges.
2
DOJ-OGR-00010325
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document