DOJ-OGR-00021130.jpg
621 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
621 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 22-1426, argues that the District Court abused its discretion during a post-trial hearing. The filing contends that the court improperly prevented the defense from cross-examining Juror 50, who, it is argued, would have been dismissed from the jury had he truthfully disclosed the nature of his past abuse during jury selection. The document contrasts the severe abuse suffered by Juror 50 with lesser forms of sexual assault reported by other potential jurors who were not dismissed.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned in the context of her 'peripheral involvement in the abuse'.
|
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror whose past abuse is central to the legal argument. The document discusses whether he should have been excused...
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The party in the trial who called an expert to testify about memories and whose defense was allegedly limited by the ...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | government agency |
Accused of abusing its discretion in conducting the Post-Trial Hearing by precluding cross-examination of Juror 50.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A hearing conducted by the District Court where it allegedly abused its discretion by limiting the defense's questioning of Juror 50.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a footnote as a location where other potential jurors reported experiencing harassment.
|
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,450 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page83 of 113
concerned memories of events that occurred so long ago and that those memories of Maxwell’s peripheral involvement in the abuse were motivated and distorted by external events. This issue was so central to the trial that the defendant called an expert to testify about memories.
Assuming Juror 50 recounted a version of his abuse similar to what he described at the hearing and in media interviews, there is no question that he would have been excused on consent, stricken for cause or by an available peremptory challenge.12 In the event that Juror 50 answered truthfully, Juror 50 would have been questioned at length by the court, in camera. Honest answers to those questions would certainly have resulted in a valid challenge for cause.
E. The District Court Abused its Discretion in the Manner in Which it Conducted the Post-Trial Hearing
The court abused its discretion in precluding cross-examination of Juror 50 by the defense and in limiting the scope of the questions.
12 The potential jurors who admitted to being victims of sexual assault and were not stricken for cause, reported conduct such as groping, harassment at work or on the subway, and inappropriate touching in social settings - conduct that was drastically different from the abuse suffered by Juror 50 – drastically different from the abuse suffered by Juror 50 and the victims herein.
68
DOJ-OGR-00021130
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document