DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
738 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
738 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to compel the production of private communications from 'Juror 50', including emails and social media content from platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The author contends that the requests are an improper and invasive 'fishing expedition' that seeks inadmissible evidence, would harass the juror, and could inhibit future jury deliberations. The document urges the Court to reject all of the defendant's specific requests for information regarding the juror's communications, potential media payments, and social media activity.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ianniello |
Cited in a legal case reference: "Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543-44."
|
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The subject of the defendant's requests for communications and other information related to his jury service, social ...
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The party making requests to compel production of Juror 50's communications and social media content.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| company |
Mentioned as one of the social media platforms from which the defendant seeks to compel production of a juror's content.
|
|
| company |
Mentioned as a social media platform where Juror 50 made a public comment on a victim's post, and from which the defe...
|
|
| company |
Mentioned as one of the social media platforms from which the defendant seeks to compel production of a juror's content.
|
|
| company |
Mentioned as one of the social media platforms from which the defendant seeks to compel production of a juror's content.
|
|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body being asked to reject the defendant's requests and to direct social media companies to produce comm...
|
Timeline (3 events)
The process of jurors deliberating, which the author argues would be inhibited by granting the defendant's request.
juryroom
jurors
Relationships (2)
The defendant is seeking to compel the production of Juror 50's private communications and social media content, suggesting a post-trial conflict or investigation into the juror's conduct.
The document states that 'Juror 50’s public comment on a victim’s public Twitter post after trial' occurred.
Key Quotes (5)
"fishing expedition"Source
— Author of the document
(Used to describe the defendant's requests for information from Juror 50, characterizing them as overly broad and speculative.)
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
Quote #1
"to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision."Source
— Ianniello case
(Quoted from a legal precedent (Ianniello) to argue for limiting the scope of inquiry into a juror's conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
Quote #2
"subject[] juries to harassment"Source
— Ianniello case
(Quoted from a legal precedent (Ianniello) to argue that the defendant's request would likely lead to harassment of juries.)
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
Quote #3
"inhibit juryroom deliberation"Source
— Ianniello case
(Quoted from a legal precedent (Ianniello) to argue that the defendant's request would have a chilling effect on jury deliberations.)
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
Quote #4
"about Juror No. 50’s jury service"Source
— Defendant's request
(Quoted from the defendant's specific request (1(c)) for communications.)
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,204 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 43 of 49
to become a “fishing expedition” but rather must limit the scope of any inquiry “to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.” Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543-44. It is hard to imagine a request more likely to “subject[] juries to harassment” and “inhibit juryroom deliberation,” id. at 543, than the defendant’s request to compel production of a juror’s emails and other written communications, as well as content from his Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other social media accounts. (Def. Mem. at 48-49). Not surprisingly, the defendant cites no precedent for this sweeping and invasive request. The Court should reject it.
Moreover, each specific request is improper. Requests 1(b) and 1(c) call for communications between jurors and communications “about Juror No. 50’s jury service,” and thus call for information that, if it exists, is almost certainly inadmissible under Rule 606(b). Moreover, the fact that Juror 50 made some public statements about his jury service does not give the defendant license to compel the production of any statements he may have made to anyone—such as a friend or loved one—about his jury service. This is a classic fishing expedition and should not be permitted. Request 1(a) calls for communications with victims and witnesses, but this too is a fishing expedition: Juror 50’s public comment on a victim’s public Twitter post after trial does not give the defense license to compel his private communications in the vague hope that, contrary to the Court’s instructions, he had some improper communications before or during trial. And Request 1(d) calls for communications about any payment Juror 50 received for media interviews, but even if he received compensation for post-trial interviews that says nothing whatsoever about whether the Court would have struck him for cause before trial based on his alleged experience with sexual abuse.
Requests 2(a) and 2(b) ask the Court to direct numerous social media companies to produce all communications to and from Juror 50 about his jury service and all posts or comments regarding
41
DOJ-OGR-00009841
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document