DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
745 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (government opposition brief)
File Size:
745 KB
Summary
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant has not met the burden of proving that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied during jury selection (voir dire) regarding past sexual abuse, distinguishing between deliberate deceit and honest mistakes based on Second Circuit case law. The Government notes that while Juror 50 made public statements about being a victim, it is not yet proven that his questionnaire answers were deliberately false.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The subject of the legal argument regarding potential misconduct and dishonesty during voir dire.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330); the party attempting to establish juror dishonesty.
|
| Shaoul | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation regarding juror misconduct standards.
|
| Nix | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation.
|
| Sattar | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation.
|
| Ruggiero | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation.
|
| Perez | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation.
|
| Fitzgerald | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation.
|
| Greene | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals whose standards are being applied.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York (Court jurisdiction).
|
|
| Manhattan Jeep Eagle |
Entity involved in a cited case.
|
|
| The Government |
The prosecution (DOJ), mentioned in footnote 10 as assuming Juror 50's statements were truthful for the sake of argum...
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Information Services (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-03-11
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York
|
Relationships (2)
Discussion of Juror 50 answering questions during voir dire.
Footnote 10: 'the Government assumes that Juror 50’s public statements on this subject were truthful.'
Key Quotes (4)
"The Current Record Does Not Support a Finding of Deliberate Falsehood"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
Quote #1
"In sum, to satisfy the first prong of the governing test, the defendant must establish dishonesty by Juror 50—a deliberate falsehood or deceit, rather than an honest mistake."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
Quote #2
"On the current record, there is no basis for the Court to find that Juror 50 gave any deliberately false answer during voir dire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
Quote #3
"The failure to answer honestly must be deliberate; a ‘juror’s good faith failure to respond, though mistaken, [does] not satisfy even the first prong of the test.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,276 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 17 of 49
Shaoul. Thus, in the Second Circuit,9 it is a “threshold requirement” to establish that a juror intentionally lied or consciously deceived the court. See Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815; Nix, 275 F. Supp. 3d at 437; Sattar, 395 F. Supp. 2d at 72 (“The failure to answer honestly must be deliberate; a ‘juror’s good faith failure to respond, though mistaken, [does] not satisfy even the first prong of the test.’”) (quoting Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815)); United States v. Ruggiero, No. 97 Civ. 2925 (HB), 2001 WL 286751, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2001) (rejecting claim of juror misconduct in voir dire, concluding “it is not clear that [the juror’s] failure to respond to the Court’s question was a deliberate attempt at dishonesty, as she only failed to answer the court’s question.”); Perez v. Manhattan Jeep Eagle, No. 92 Civ. 9521 (DLC), 1997 WL 403458, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 1997) (“[T]he first prong of the test requires a determination of whether juror number one deliberately lied to the Court during voir dire, or whether his answer was the result of a good faith misunderstanding of the question.”).
In sum, to satisfy the first prong of the governing test, the defendant must establish dishonesty by Juror 50—a deliberate falsehood or deceit, rather than an honest mistake.
b. The Current Record Does Not Support a Finding of Deliberate Falsehood
On the current record, there is no basis for the Court to find that Juror 50 gave any deliberately false answer during voir dire. To be sure, if his public statements regarding being a victim of sexual abuse were truthful,10 it would appear that Juror 50 answered Question 48
___________________
9 While some circuits have reached a different result, the Second Circuit’s view appears to be the prevailing one. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 364 n.3 (4th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases).
10 It is of course possible that Juror 50’s unsworn public statements were not truthful, while his sworn answers on the questionnaire were. This is a threshold fact that must be determined at a hearing. But for purposes of discussion in this brief, the Government assumes that Juror 50’s public statements on this subject were truthful.
9 While some circuits have reached a different result, the Second Circuit’s view appears to be the prevailing one. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Greene, 150 F.3d 357, 364 n.3 (4th Cir. 1998) (collecting cases).
10 It is of course possible that Juror 50’s unsworn public statements were not truthful, while his sworn answers on the questionnaire were. This is a threshold fact that must be determined at a hearing. But for purposes of discussion in this brief, the Government assumes that Juror 50’s public statements on this subject were truthful.
15
DOJ-OGR-00009815
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document