DOJ-OGR-00009004.jpg
660 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
660 KB
Summary
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The main argument is that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial because Juror No. 50 allegedly provided untruthful answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document also addresses arguments against Juror No. 50's right to intervene or make discovery requests, citing an ongoing investigation into the juror.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Party in a trial |
Mentioned as being entitled to a new trial.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
The subject of the legal argument, alleged to have not answered questions truthfully during voir dire, and whose acti...
|
Timeline (4 events)
A legal argument for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell.
Voir dire (jury selection) during which Juror No. 50 allegedly did not truthfully answer material questions.
An investigation into Juror No. 50.
A potential evidentiary hearing to be held.
Relationships (2)
The document outlines a legal argument that Juror No. 50's alleged false answers during voir dire entitle Ms. Maxwell to a new trial.
The document discusses the Court's role in evaluating the juror's answers and responding to the juror's legal filings and requests.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,919 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 66
B. An intentionally false answer during voir dire is not a prerequisite to obtaining a new trial. ..................................................................................................................... 23
Argument ...................................................................................................................................... 28
I. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. .......................................................................... 28
A. Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer material questions during voir dire, including Questions 25 and 48................................................................................ 28
B. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, his answers would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. .......................................... 29
1. Implied bias. .................................................................................................... 30
2. Inferable bias. .................................................................................................. 37
3. Actual bias. ...................................................................................................... 38
C. Juror No. 50’s answers to Questions 25 and 48 were intentionally false. ............ 39
D. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false. ........................ 43
E. The scope of any evidentiary hearing. .................................................................... 48
1. Pre-hearing discovery. .................................................................................... 48
2. The hearing itself. ........................................................................................... 49
II. Juror No. 50 has no right to intervene. ........................................................................ 51
A. Juror No. 50 lacks standing...................................................................................... 51
B. This Court should refuse Juror No. 50’s discovery request because Juror No. 50 is under investigation and the release of the information requested would prejudice that investigation. .................................................................................................... 52
C. Juror No. 50’s filings should be stricken or, alternatively, remain under seal. ..... 53
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 56
Certificate of Service ............................................................................................................... 59
iii
DOJ-OGR-00009004
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document