DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
482 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
482 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of the Government's response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to satisfy the 'Second Prong of McDonough,' a legal test, regarding Juror 50, who allegedly gave a false answer on a questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse. While finding the defendant's argument unpersuasive, the Government agrees a limited hearing is warranted to determine if the juror's answer was deliberately false and argues the court must decide if it would have granted a challenge for cause, a standard the defendant allegedly omitted.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a motion due to an alleged inconsistency between public statements and an answer on a jury questionnaire.
|
| McDonough | Party in a cited legal case |
The name is part of the 'Second Prong of McDonough' legal test being discussed.
|
| Stewart | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303' and 'Stewart, 433 F.3d at 304' as a source for the legal standard.
|
| Greer | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158' as a source for the legal standard.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
A party in the legal case, arguing against the defendant's motion but agreeing to a limited hearing.
|
| Court | Judicial body |
The judicial body being asked to grant the defendant's motion and which must determine the outcome of a hypothetical ...
|
| district court | Judicial body |
Mentioned in the legal standard as the body that must determine if it would have granted a hypothetical challenge.
|
| 2d Cir. | Judicial body |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in a case law reference.
|
Timeline (1 events)
The Government's argument against a defendant's motion concerning Juror 50's questionnaire answers, referencing the McDonough legal test.
Relationships (1)
The document outlines the Government's arguments against a motion filed by the defendant in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Key Quotes (2)
"The second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."Source
— The defendant's brief
(A quote from the defendant's brief which the Government claims omits a key part of the legal standard.)
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
Quote #1
"the district court must ‘determine if it would have granted the hypothetical challenge.’"Source
— Legal standard from Stewart, 433 F.3d at 304 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002))
(Presented as the correct and complete legal standard that the defendant's brief allegedly omits.)
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,468 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 21 of 49
In sum, the defendant’s argument that the Court should grant her motion based purely on unsworn public statements by Juror 50 is unpersuasive. That said, given the apparent inconsistency between Juror 50’s public statements that he was a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to Question 48 on the questionnaire, the Government believes that a limited evidentiary hearing on that subject is warranted to determine whether he answered Question 48 falsely and, if so, whether that answer was deliberate or inadvertent. The Government addresses the proper scope of that hearing in Part II, infra.
2. The Defendant Has Failed to Satisfy the Second Prong of McDonough
a. The Second Prong of McDonough Requires the Court to Determine Whether It Would Have Granted a Hypothetical Challenge
The defendant’s brief states: “The second question is whether truthful responses from Juror No. 50 would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” (Def. Mem. at 29 (citing Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303)). This omits an important aspect of the relevant standard, which provides that in order to make that decision, “the district court must ‘determine if it would have granted the hypothetical challenge.’” Stewart, 433 F.3d at 304 (quoting United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2002)). Critically, that determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and “‘[t]here
19
DOJ-OGR-00009140
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document