DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg
736 KB
Extraction Summary
9
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
736 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror 50, failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection. This omission prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge, and the juror later revealed his bias to the media by stating his memory was 'like a video' and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility. The argument cites numerous New Jersey court precedents where judgments were invalidated for similar juror inaccuracies.
People (9)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Murphy | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citations 'Murphy v. Nogam' and 'Murphy v. Adm’r E. Jersey State Prison'.
|
| Nogam | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Murphy v. Nogam'.
|
| Scher | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'State v. Scher'.
|
| Wright | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Wright v. Bernstein'.
|
| Bernstein | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Wright v. Bernstein'.
|
| Williams | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'State v. Williams'.
|
| Thompson | Litigant |
Mentioned in the case citation 'State v. Thompson'.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror in Ms. Maxwell's trial who failed to disclose his claimed victim status during jury selection.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Litigant/Defendant |
The subject of the legal argument, who was allegedly prejudiced by Juror 50's omissions during her trial.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Adm’r E. Jersey State Prison | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'Murphy v. Adm’r E. Jersey State Prison'.
|
| New Jersey courts | government agency |
Mentioned as having repeatedly invalidated judgments in similar cases.
|
| the Court | government agency |
Refers to the court presiding over Ms. Maxwell's trial.
|
| the media | media |
Juror 50 revealed information to the media that he did not reveal to the Court.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A close, contested trial involving Ms. Maxwell where the key issue was the credibility of the accusers.
During the jury selection for Ms. Maxwell's trial, Juror 50 failed to disclose his claimed victim status, which is argued to have robbed Ms. Maxwell of a fair trial.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in multiple case citations and as the location where similar legal precedents were set.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the phrase 'regardless of which side of the Hudson the misstatements occurred', likely referring to the ...
|
Relationships (1)
The document argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose his victim status during jury selection prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial by preventing her from exercising a peremptory challenge.
Key Quotes (1)
"was like a video"Source
— Juror 50
(Describing his memory to the media, a statement he did not make to the Court during jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,991 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 54 of 66
As discussed in Murphy v. Nogam, No. CV 14-4268 (KM), 2018 WL 278735, at *25 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2018), aff’d sub nom. Murphy v. Adm’r E. Jersey State Prison, No. 18-2825, 2021 WL 2822179 (3d Cir. July 7, 2021), New Jersey courts have repeatedly
invalidated judgments where a juror’s inaccurate answer to a question propounded in the jury voir dire precluded a litigant from exercising a peremptory challenge. State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263 (App.Div.1994), cert. denied, 140 N.J. 276 (1995) (citing Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957); State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976)).
Of course, the material omissions by Juror 50 were not made in New Jersey. The prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and the concept of fundamental fairness, however, are the same regardless of which side of the Hudson the misstatements occurred. In a very close, contested trial where the only real issue was the credibility of the accusers, the failure of Juror 50 to disclose his claimed victim status in jury selection cheated Ms. Maxwell of her ability to intelligently exercise her peremptory challenges and robbed her of a fair trial. In this case truthful responses would have revealed Juror 50’s claimed victim status. He would have been excused for cause on that basis alone and would never answered any questions in person.
Even if Juror 50 had claimed on the questionnaire that he could be fair, despite his victim status, the result would have been the same. He would have been asked to describe to the Court and the parties, under oath, what he claimed happened to him, when it happened, the impact on him, and how he could still be fair. Had Juror 50 revealed to the Court, as he did to the media, that he believed that his memory “was like a video” and that he would advocate that the alleged victims here were credible, based on his own
47
DOJ-OGR-00009055
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document