DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
647 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion
File Size:
647 KB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that while a hearing is warranted regarding Juror 50's potential failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse, the Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media usage. The Judge notes that Juror 50's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps during jury selection do not implicate the 'McDonough' standard for juror misconduct.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of an inquiry regarding potential misconduct and false answers during jury selection.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Seeking a hearing to probe Juror 50's answers; identified as Ghislaine Maxwell via case number and 'Maxwell Br.' refe...
|
| AJN | Judge |
Presiding Judge (Initials in Case Number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, referring to Alison J. Nathan).
|
Relationships (1)
Defendant seeks a hearing to probe Juror 50's answers.
Key Quotes (3)
"The potential impropriety that warrants a hearing is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is Juror 50’s potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
Quote #1
"I do, but I actually just deleted them because I just got out of a relationship and I didn’t want to see anything regarding them. So I am fully off of it right now."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
Quote #2
"The Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50’s social media"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,216 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page103 of 217
SA-357
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 21
SA-357
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 21
The potential impropriety that warrants a hearing is not that someone with a history of
sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is Juror 50’s potential failure to respond
truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for such material information
so that any potential bias could be explored. Accordingly, the Court will hold a hearing limited
in scope to Juror 50’s answers to Questions 25 and 48 of the questionnaire.
sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is Juror 50’s potential failure to respond
truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for such material information
so that any potential bias could be explored. Accordingly, the Court will hold a hearing limited
in scope to Juror 50’s answers to Questions 25 and 48 of the questionnaire.
C. The Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50’s social media
The parties devote significant portions of the briefs to the question of whether Juror 50
answered falsely the Court’s questions about social media usage during voir dire. To the extent
that the Defendant seeks a hearing to probe Juror 50’s answers to voir dire about his social media
usage, her arguments are based on speculation, and she has failed to make the high showing
required. See Baker, 899 F.3d at 130. At voir dire, when asked if he “use[s] social media,” Juror
50 stated, “I do, but I actually just deleted them because I just got out of a relationship and I
didn’t want to see anything regarding them. So I am fully off of it right now.” Nov. 16, 2021 Tr.
at 133. The Court then asked, “What did you use, Facebook, Twitter?” to which Juror 50 replied
“Facebook and Instagram,” clarifying that the accounts contained “[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies.”
Id.
answered falsely the Court’s questions about social media usage during voir dire. To the extent
that the Defendant seeks a hearing to probe Juror 50’s answers to voir dire about his social media
usage, her arguments are based on speculation, and she has failed to make the high showing
required. See Baker, 899 F.3d at 130. At voir dire, when asked if he “use[s] social media,” Juror
50 stated, “I do, but I actually just deleted them because I just got out of a relationship and I
didn’t want to see anything regarding them. So I am fully off of it right now.” Nov. 16, 2021 Tr.
at 133. The Court then asked, “What did you use, Facebook, Twitter?” to which Juror 50 replied
“Facebook and Instagram,” clarifying that the accounts contained “[p]ersonal stuff, like selfies.”
Id.
The screenshots proffered by the Defendant do not demonstrate that any of these answers
implicate McDonough. First, Juror 50 did not deny having a Twitter account. Second, Juror
50’s account had only 1 follower and followed only 39 people, which corroborates that his
Twitter use was, at most, relatively minimal. See Maxwell Br. at 17. Third, the fact that Juror
50’s Twitter account was opened in April 2021 and that he used it again in January 2022, after
the completion of the trial, is consistent with Juror 50’s answer that he deleted his social media
accounts, or just the social media applications, shortly before voir dire. The same is true of Juror
implicate McDonough. First, Juror 50 did not deny having a Twitter account. Second, Juror
50’s account had only 1 follower and followed only 39 people, which corroborates that his
Twitter use was, at most, relatively minimal. See Maxwell Br. at 17. Third, the fact that Juror
50’s Twitter account was opened in April 2021 and that he used it again in January 2022, after
the completion of the trial, is consistent with Juror 50’s answer that he deleted his social media
accounts, or just the social media applications, shortly before voir dire. The same is true of Juror
9
DOJ-OGR-00021533
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document