DOJ-OGR-00020971.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page145 of 221
A-345
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 28 of 40

personal experience with sexual assault, abuse, or harassment; although, for a majority of these eight jurors, the Defendant did not propose any follow-up questions. The Defendant did not challenge any of these prospective jurors for cause on the basis of the juror’s answer to Question 48.

Some of these jurors disclosed experiences distinct from that disclosed by Juror 50—for example, sexual harassment on the subway. Two jurors, however, disclosed experiences similar to that of Juror 50, neither of whom was challenged for cause. Juror A reported that she was “sexually molested by an uncle when [she] was 12, 13.”⁶ Although this juror was even closer in age to the victim-witnesses when they first were abused, and presumably abused by “someone familiar to [her] . . . who was part of [her] life,” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 4, the Defendant did not propose any follow-up questions or challenge the prospective juror for cause. Like Juror A, Juror 50 credibly affirmed that his personal experience would not impact his ability to be fair or impartial nor would the subject matter “upset [him] in such a way that would distract [him] from [his] duty as a juror.” See Hearing Tr. at 26–27. Next, Juror B explained that just two years before jury selection, she had reported that a friend was being coerced and sexually abused by a professor. At the Defendant’s request, the Court asked whether the experience might in any way interfere with her ability to be fair and impartial to the extent there may be issues in the case that arise around reporting or not reporting allegations related to sexual abuse. She affirmed that it would not, and the Defendant did not challenge her for cause. Like Juror B, Juror 50 credibly affirmed at the March 8 hearing that “issues of reporting or not reporting sexual abuse that might

⁶ To further the important interest of protecting juror anonymity and privacy, the Court has redacted references to specific juror numbers. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006); Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 511–12 (1984). In this opinion, Juror A refers to Juror [REDACTED], Juror B refers to Juror [REDACTED] and Juror C refers to Juror [REDACTED]. The Court has provided an unredacted copy of the Opinion & Order to the parties and will file an unredacted copy under seal.

28

DOJ-OGR-00020971