DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg
797 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
797 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, details a portion of the jury selection (voir dire) process from November 2021 in a criminal case. It outlines the Court's procedures for narrowing down the pool of prospective jurors and refutes assertions made by the defense. Specifically, it corrects the defendant's claims about the Court's rulings on challenges for cause and clarifies the reasons why certain jurors, some of whom were familiar with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein, were excused.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of prospective jurors' familiarity with him and the defendant through the media.
|
|
| defendant | defendant |
A party in the legal case, mentioned throughout the document in relation to the jury selection process and her assert...
|
| defense counsel | legal representative |
Mentioned as having objected to excusing four of the 13 prospective jurors.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, making decisions and proposals regarding the jury selection process.
|
| The Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, opposing the defendant. Mentioned in relation to agreements and disagreements on excusing ...
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-11-15
A conference was held where the Court indicated it planned to qualify 50 to 60 of the 231 jurors after voir dire.
Jury selection process (voir dire) where parties agreed on a number of prospective jurors to proceed and the Court questioned them.
Relationships (2)
The document mentions prospective jurors' familiarity with both the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein through the media, suggesting a public association between them relevant to the case.
The document outlines disagreements between the Government and the defense (representing the defendant) regarding the jury selection process, establishing them as opposing parties in a legal proceeding.
Key Quotes (4)
"thought should be considered for excusing."Source
— The Court
(Describing the Court's view on a list of jurors.)
DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg
Quote #1
"sufficient number to get to the number of jurors that we need."Source
— The Court
(The Court's determination regarding the 231 prospective jurors proceeding to voir dire.)
DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg
Quote #2
"[t]he Court granted all 23 of the[] challenges for cause made by the defense"Source
— defendant
(An assertion made by the defendant in a memo, which the document claims is incorrect.)
DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg
Quote #3
"the parties jointly agreed to excuse 67 of the 114 who answered ‘yes’ when asked if they had been a victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual harassment."Source
— defendant
(A statement from the defendant's memo, which the document describes as misleading.)
DOJ-OGR-00009803.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,459 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 5 of 49
jurors—that were included on the list of jurors that the parties agreed should proceed to voir dire—
that the Court “thought should be considered for excusing.” Id. at 3:5-11. While the Government
did not object to the Court’s proposal, defense counsel objected to excusing four of the 13
prospective jurors; those four proceeded to voir dire. Id. at 3:12-16. On November 15, 2021, the
Court calculated that the parties had agreed that 231 of the 694 prospective jurors should proceed
to voir dire, which the Court determined was a “sufficient number to get to the number of jurors
that we need.” Id. at 4:9-13. Thus, the Court had no occasion to and did not rule on whether to
strike the prospective jurors whom only one party had challenged for cause.¹ The Court indicated
at the November 15 conference that it planned to qualify 50 to 60 of the 231 jurors after voir dire.
Id. at 4:19-20.
that the Court “thought should be considered for excusing.” Id. at 3:5-11. While the Government
did not object to the Court’s proposal, defense counsel objected to excusing four of the 13
prospective jurors; those four proceeded to voir dire. Id. at 3:12-16. On November 15, 2021, the
Court calculated that the parties had agreed that 231 of the 694 prospective jurors should proceed
to voir dire, which the Court determined was a “sufficient number to get to the number of jurors
that we need.” Id. at 4:9-13. Thus, the Court had no occasion to and did not rule on whether to
strike the prospective jurors whom only one party had challenged for cause.¹ The Court indicated
at the November 15 conference that it planned to qualify 50 to 60 of the 231 jurors after voir dire.
Id. at 4:19-20.
On November 16, 2021, the Court commenced the voir dire portion of the jury selection
process. The Court asked prospective jurors several follow-up questions to questions in the jury
questionnaire which prospective jurors had answered affirmatively, including, for example, the
prospective jurors’ familiarity through the media with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein; the
prospective jurors’ history (or that of a friend or family member) of prior sexual harassment, sexual
abuse, or sexual assault; and the prospective jurors’ experience (or that of a relative or close friend)
process. The Court asked prospective jurors several follow-up questions to questions in the jury
questionnaire which prospective jurors had answered affirmatively, including, for example, the
prospective jurors’ familiarity through the media with the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein; the
prospective jurors’ history (or that of a friend or family member) of prior sexual harassment, sexual
abuse, or sexual assault; and the prospective jurors’ experience (or that of a relative or close friend)
¹ The defendant is therefore incorrect when she asserts that “[t]he Court granted all 23 of the[]
challenges for cause made by the defense” that the Government did not agree with. (Def. Mem.
at 10). Similarly misleading is the defendant’s statement that “the parties jointly agreed to excuse
67 of the 114 who answered ‘yes’ when asked if they had been a victim of sexual abuse, sexual
assault, or sexual harassment.” (Def. Memo. at 9). That assertion fails to note that a significant
number of those prospective jurors had stated that they could not be fair and impartial for a number
of reasons, including their familiarity through the media with the defendant and Epstein; that the
Government agreed to strike or excuse many of those jurors for reasons other than their responses
to Question 48; and that the Court did not ultimately rule on whether any of those jurors should be
struck for cause.
challenges for cause made by the defense” that the Government did not agree with. (Def. Mem.
at 10). Similarly misleading is the defendant’s statement that “the parties jointly agreed to excuse
67 of the 114 who answered ‘yes’ when asked if they had been a victim of sexual abuse, sexual
assault, or sexual harassment.” (Def. Memo. at 9). That assertion fails to note that a significant
number of those prospective jurors had stated that they could not be fair and impartial for a number
of reasons, including their familiarity through the media with the defendant and Epstein; that the
Government agreed to strike or excuse many of those jurors for reasons other than their responses
to Question 48; and that the Court did not ultimately rule on whether any of those jurors should be
struck for cause.
3
DOJ-OGR-00009803
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document