DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
736 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
736 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror whose impartiality is being questioned by the defendant. The document states Juror 50 confirmed he could deci...
|
| Dr. Loftus | Witness |
A witness whose testimony the defendant claims Juror 50 would be unable to fairly evaluate.
|
| Pirk | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Pirk.
|
| Barnes | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the cited case United States v. Barnes.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the case, likely the prosecution, whose burden of proof is mentioned.
|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, whose actions during voir dire are being defended.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document (DOJ-OGR-00009835), likely a document control number from the Department of Jus...
|
Timeline (4 events)
Relationships (2)
The defendant is challenging the suitability of Juror 50 to serve on the jury, arguing the court did not properly probe the juror's ability to be impartial.
Key Quotes (6)
"set aside his own traumatic experience"Source
— defendant
(The defendant's argument about what Juror 50 should have been probed on.)
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
Quote #1
"[a]bsolutely” “decide the case based on the facts and evidence, [] presented in court."Source
— Juror 50
(Juror 50's response during oral voir dire about his ability to be impartial.)
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
Quote #2
"[n]o doubt” that he “could decide the case based on the facts and evidence, or lack of evidence, here presented in court"Source
— Juror 50
(Juror 50's statement confirming his impartiality.)
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
Quote #3
"defense that her accusers’ memories were unreliable and tainted by money and manipulation."Source
— defendant
(The defendant's defense theory that they claim Juror 50 could not fairly assess.)
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
Quote #4
"screen individuals who are unable to sit in a fair and impartial manner."Source
— United States v. Pirk
(A quote from a legal precedent defining the purpose of voir dire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
Quote #5
"[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."Source
— United States v. Barnes
(A quote from a legal precedent further defining the purpose of voir dire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,205 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 37 of 49
The defendant also argues that the Court and the parties would have “probed” Juror 50 about whether he was able to “set aside his own traumatic experience” when evaluating whether the Government met its burden of proof. (Def. Mem. at 44). Juror 50 confirmed both in writing and during oral voir dire that he could “[a]bsolutely” “decide the case based on the facts and evidence, [] presented in court.” Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 130:12-16; see id. at 131:1-7 (stating that he had “[n]o doubt” that he “could decide the case based on the facts and evidence, or lack of evidence, here presented in court”); see also Def. Ex. 1, Questions 13 & 41. There is no need for any further inquiry on this subject, beyond perhaps reaffirming that Juror 50 was truthful when he stated that he could decide the case based on the facts and evidence presented in court.
Finally, the defendant claims that the Court and the parties would have specifically inquired as to whether Juror 50 was able to fairly evaluate Dr. Loftus’s testimony and impartially assess the defendant’s “defense that her accusers’ memories were unreliable and tainted by money and manipulation.” (Def. Mem. at 44). This claim is belied by the voir dire record. The Court did not ask jurors who answered Question 48 in the affirmative such follow up questions, and rightly so. The purpose of voir dire is not to educate prospective jurors on the defense theories of the case or to determine if prospective jurors agree with such theories or would credit specific, as-yet-uncalled witnesses. Instead, the purpose of voir dire is to “screen individuals who are unable to sit in a fair and impartial manner.” United States v. Pirk, 15 Cr. 142 (EAW), 2018 WL 1027441, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2018); see also United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) (“[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.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, it is clear that the Court would
35
DOJ-OGR-00009835
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document