DOJ-OGR-00020946.jpg
646 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / judicial opinion
File Size:
646 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a court order (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text details the Court's finding that 'Juror 50' did not deliberately provide false testimony on his jury questionnaire but rather rushed through it carelessly. The Court concludes that Juror 50 was not biased, can serve impartially despite being a survivor of sexual abuse, and would not have been struck for cause even if he had disclosed his history accurately.
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp)
|
|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case filing format and 'The Court' references.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court thus credits his testimony that he was distracted as he filled out the questionnaire and “skimmed way too fast,” leading him to misunderstand some of the questions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020946.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror 50’s lack of attention and care in responding accurately to every question on the questionnaire is regrettable, but the Court is confident that the failure to disclose was not deliberate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020946.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court further finds that Juror 50 was not biased and would not have been stricken for cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020946.jpg
Quote #3
"Thus, this Court would not have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020946.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,255 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page120 of 221
A-320
A-320
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 40
His tone, demeanor, and responsiveness gave no indication of false testimony. The Court thus credits his testimony that he was distracted as he filled out the questionnaire and “skimmed way too fast,” leading him to misunderstand some of the questions. Assuming mistakenly that he would not be one of the twelve jurors selected from the hundreds of prospective jurors who had been summoned, he rushed through the questionnaire. This led to inaccurate answers. Juror 50’s lack of attention and care in responding accurately to every question on the questionnaire is regrettable, but the Court is confident that the failure to disclose was not deliberate.
The Court further finds that Juror 50 was not biased and would not have been stricken for cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately. At the hearing, the Court asked Juror 50 the same set of questions that it asked of all prospective jurors who had indicated prior experience with sexual abuse on the questionnaire. These questions are typical of how trial court judges seek to assess potential bias and determine—based on the juror’s responses—whether the juror should be struck for cause. This is so because the key question is not simply whether an individual has had experiences similar to the issues that will be explored at trial, but whether the individual can serve fairly and impartially.
This Court has presided over a murder trial in which a juror who had a family member murdered was not struck for cause. So too victims of fraud serve faithfully in fraud trials and individuals who have been discriminated against serve fairly in discrimination cases. And survivors of rape have and can serve impartially in trials charging the crime of rape. In this case, Juror 50’s responses at the hearing to the questions regarding his ability to be a fair and impartial juror, even in light of his past experience of sexual abuse, established that he too could serve fairly and impartially. Thus, this Court would not have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.
3
DOJ-OGR-00020946
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document