DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
744 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
744 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because Juror No. 50, and possibly another juror, provided false answers during jury selection, thus depriving her of an impartial jury of 12. The defense refutes the government's argument that they must prove the juror was "deliberately" dishonest, citing case law that they argue sets a different standard.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the person submitting a motion for a new trial.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
A juror whose presence on the jury is the basis for the motion for a new trial, alleged to have provided false answers.
|
| Parker |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Parker v. Gladden'.
|
|
| Gladden |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Parker v. Gladden'.
|
|
| Martinez-Salazar |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Martinez-Salazar'.
|
|
| Stewart |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Stewart'.
|
|
| Greenwood |
Mentioned in the case citation 'McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited as a legal authority whose precedent is being discussed.
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Cited as a legal authority (court) whose precedent is being discussed.
|
| McDonough Power Equip. | company |
Mentioned in the case citation 'McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-24
Ghislaine Maxwell submitted a reply in support of her motion for a new trial.
The criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which is the subject of the motion for a new trial.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case names ('United States v. ...') and in reference to the U.S. Constitution.
|
Relationships (1)
The document alleges that Juror No. 50's presence on the jury deprived Ms. Maxwell of a fair and impartial trial.
Key Quotes (5)
"was entitled to be tried by 12, not 9 or even 10, impartial and unprejudiced jurors."Source
— Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team
(Quoted from the case Parker v. Gladden to argue for Ms. Maxwell's right to a full, impartial jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
Quote #1
"[T]he seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause . . . require[s] reversal."Source
— United States v. Martinez-Salazar
(A legal principle cited to support the argument for a new trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
Quote #2
"dishonest"Source
— The government
(A term the government allegedly used to describe the standard for requiring a new trial regarding Juror No. 50, which Maxwell's team disputes.)
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
Quote #3
"deliberately"Source
— The government
(A term the government allegedly used to describe the standard for requiring a new trial regarding Juror No. 50, which Maxwell's team disputes.)
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
Quote #4
"deliberate falsehood"Source
— Legal standard
(A legal standard that Maxwell's team argues is not required by the Supreme Court or Second Circuit for a new trial in this situation.)
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,198 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 32
Ghislaine Maxwell submits this reply in support of her motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 for a new trial.
Introduction
Ms. Maxwell “was entitled to be tried by 12, not 9 or even 10, impartial and unprejudiced jurors.” Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 366 (1966). That did not happen. Juror No. 50’s presence on the jury deprived Ms. Maxwell of the fair and impartial jury the due process and the Sixth Amendment guarantee. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI.¹ “[T]he seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause . . . require[s] reversal.” United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316 (2000).
The government’s response to this suffers from two fundamental errors. The first is to insist that a new trial is required only if Juror No. 50 was “dishonest” by “deliberately” providing false answers to Questions 25 and 48. That is not the law. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit requires a showing of a “deliberate falsehood.” United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) and holding that the requirement of a fair and impartial jury is “reflected in the McDonough standard for analyzing allegations that a juror’s false voir dire concealed bias that affected the fairness of the trial: a party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must demonstrate first, that the juror’s voir dire response was false and second, that the correct
¹ It appears that, at best, Ms. Maxwell had 10 fair and impartial jurors, not the 12 guaranteed her by the United States Constitution. We know at least one other juror in addition to Juror No. 50 falsely denied having been a victim of sexual abuse or assault.
Although this Court need not hold a hearing since the record already establishes that Ms. Maxwell was deprived of her Sixth Amendment right to trial by an impartial jury, any such hearing must also serve to identify this other juror. Such a hearing likely would also show that Juror No. 50 was actually biased, in addition to being impliedly and inferably biased.
1
DOJ-OGR-00009196
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document