DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
802 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order (page 2 of 5)
File Size:
802 KB
Summary
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 18, 2021. The text outlines legal arguments regarding jury selection (*voir dire*), citing Second Circuit precedents to argue that the court, rather than attorneys, should conduct the questioning of potential jurors to ensure impartiality and efficiency. The filing asserts that the defendant (Maxwell) has provided no persuasive reason to deviate from this customary practice.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on Case No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE); the text argues she has offered no persuasive reas...
|
| Saipov | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in footnote as precedent (United States v. Saipov) regarding rejection of attorney-conducted voir dire.
|
| Barone | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in footnote as precedent (United States v. Barone).
|
| Wilson | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in footnote as precedent (United States v. Wilson).
|
| Kyles | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in body text as precedent (United States v. Kyles).
|
| Barnes | Defendant (Cited Case) |
Cited in body text as precedent (United States v. Barnes).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
The venue for the case (implied by S.D.N.Y citations).
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited as legal authority regarding voir dire practices.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, mentioned in footnotes.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The legal district where the case precedents and current case are located.
|
Relationships (1)
The Defendant (Maxwell)
→
Legal/Adversarial
→
The Court
Defendant is requesting alternative voir dire procedures which the filing argues against.
Key Quotes (4)
"The court wants a fair and impartial jury to be chosen and to move expeditiously to the presentation of evidence. Counsel want a jury favorable to their cause—fair or not"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
Quote #1
"Counsel view voir dire as an opportunity for advocacy similar to, albeit not the equivalent of, openings or summations."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
Quote #2
"The defendant offers no persuasive reason to abandon the customary practice in this District... and to adopt an alternative procedure for this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
Quote #3
"[T]he purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005251.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,524 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 355 Filed 10/18/21 Page 2 of 5
Page 2
Page 2
292 F.3d at 128; see also United States v. Kyles, 40 F.3d 519, 524 (2d Cir. 1994) (stating that a
district court has “broad discretion whether to pose a defendant’s requested voir dire questions”).
Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contemplate that district courts may exercise
that discretion by permitting counsel to conduct the questioning of potential jurors, see Fed. R.
Crim. P. 24(a), the usual practice is for the court to conduct its own questioning, and federal courts
generally have resisted efforts by counsel to expand their own role. See, e.g., Lawes, 292 F.3d at
128 (noting the “long struggle between bench and bar” over juror questioning and observing that
“federal courts have successfully resisted such attempts” by counsel to have a greater role). Courts
are generally resistant to such efforts because “[c]ourt and counsel have somewhat different goals
in voir dire.” Id. As the Second Circuit has observed:
district court has “broad discretion whether to pose a defendant’s requested voir dire questions”).
Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contemplate that district courts may exercise
that discretion by permitting counsel to conduct the questioning of potential jurors, see Fed. R.
Crim. P. 24(a), the usual practice is for the court to conduct its own questioning, and federal courts
generally have resisted efforts by counsel to expand their own role. See, e.g., Lawes, 292 F.3d at
128 (noting the “long struggle between bench and bar” over juror questioning and observing that
“federal courts have successfully resisted such attempts” by counsel to have a greater role). Courts
are generally resistant to such efforts because “[c]ourt and counsel have somewhat different goals
in voir dire.” Id. As the Second Circuit has observed:
The court wants a fair and impartial jury to be chosen and to move
expeditiously to the presentation of evidence. Counsel want a jury
favorable to their cause—fair or not—and voir dire aids them in
exercising peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.
Counsel have an additional purpose in voir dire moreover and that
involves exposing jurors to various arguments they intend to make
at trial. Counsel view voir dire as an opportunity for advocacy
similar to, albeit not the equivalent of, openings or summations.
expeditiously to the presentation of evidence. Counsel want a jury
favorable to their cause—fair or not—and voir dire aids them in
exercising peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.
Counsel have an additional purpose in voir dire moreover and that
involves exposing jurors to various arguments they intend to make
at trial. Counsel view voir dire as an opportunity for advocacy
similar to, albeit not the equivalent of, openings or summations.
Id.; see also United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979) (“[T]he purpose of the voir
dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to
choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case.” (quotation marks
and citation omitted)).
dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis in depth to permit a party to
choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for his case.” (quotation marks
and citation omitted)).
The defendant offers no persuasive reason to abandon the customary practice in this
District,¹ and of federal courts generally, and to adopt an alternative procedure for this case. The
District,¹ and of federal courts generally, and to adopt an alternative procedure for this case. The
__________________________________________________________________
¹ See, e.g., United States v. Saipov, No. 17 Cr. 722 (VSB), 2020 WL 958527, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
27, 2020) (rejecting defendant’s arguments for attorney conducted voir dire in capital case);
United States v. Barone, No. 09 Cr. 91 (NRB), 2010 WL 2976505, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2010)
(declining to permit attorney-conducted voir dire); United States v. Wilson, 571 F. Supp. 1422,
¹ See, e.g., United States v. Saipov, No. 17 Cr. 722 (VSB), 2020 WL 958527, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
27, 2020) (rejecting defendant’s arguments for attorney conducted voir dire in capital case);
United States v. Barone, No. 09 Cr. 91 (NRB), 2010 WL 2976505, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2010)
(declining to permit attorney-conducted voir dire); United States v. Wilson, 571 F. Supp. 1422,
DOJ-OGR-00005251
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document