DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
646 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
646 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a judicial opinion concerning an appeal by a defendant named Maxwell. The court is reviewing the District Court's decision to deny Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The basis for Maxwell's motion was that 'Juror 50' failed to accurately answer questions on a jury questionnaire about a personal history of sexual abuse, which Maxwell argues deprived her of a fair and impartial jury.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
The subject of the motion for a new trial, contending she was deprived of a fair and impartial jury.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Allegedly failed to accurately respond to questions on a jury questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse.
|
| Rivas | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation Rivas v. Brattesani.
|
| Brattesani | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation Rivas v. Brattesani.
|
| Ferguson | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Ferguson.
|
| Sims | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation In re Sims.
|
| Moon | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation United States v. Moon.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judiciary |
The court that denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, whose decision is being reviewed for abuse of discretion.
|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned as a party in the case citations United States v. Ferguson and United States v. Moon.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Maxwell's motion for a new trial was denied by the District Court.
District Court
A special evidentiary hearing was held prior to the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion.
District Court
Relationships (2)
Maxwell's motion for a new trial is based on the allegation that Juror 50's failure to accurately answer a questionnaire deprived her of a fair trial.
The District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, a decision which is now under review by a higher court.
Key Quotes (6)
"haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences."Source
— Appellate Court (citing United States v. Moon)
(Describing the court's reluctance to question jurors after a verdict.)
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
Quote #1
"vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,"Source
— Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a)
(Quoting the federal rule that allows courts to grant new trials.)
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
Quote #2
"sparingly"Source
— Appellate Court
(Describing how often courts should grant new trials.)
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
Quote #3
"the most extraordinary circumstances."Source
— Appellate Court (citing Ferguson)
(Describing the conditions under which a new trial should be granted.)
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
Quote #4
"[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance."Source
— Court in Rivas v. Brattesani
(A quote from a cited case explaining the standard for abuse of discretion.)
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
Quote #5
"a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions."Source
— Court in In re Sims
(Part of the definition of the legal term of art "abuse of discretion".)
DOJ-OGR-00014867.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,739 characters)
Case 20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1780-1 Filed 12/02/21 Page 17 of 26
3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell’s Motion for a New Trial
Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell’s motion for a new trial.
We review a District Court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.27 We have been extremely reluctant to “haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.”28 While courts can “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so “sparingly” and only in “the most extraordinary circumstances.”29 A district court “has
27 See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). “[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance.” United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the term of art “abuse of discretion” includes errors of law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or “a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
28 United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983).
29 Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134.
17
DOJ-OGR-00014867
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document