DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg
554 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
554 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a request by Ms. Maxwell to the Court for pre-hearing discovery. She asks the court to authorize subpoenas for the communications of Juror No. 50, who is alleged to have answered a question falsely during voir dire. The request seeks emails and other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors in the case to investigate potential juror misconduct.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell |
A party in the case who is requesting the Court to authorize subpoenas for Juror No. 50.
|
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
The subject of the legal filing, alleged to have falsely answered a question during voir dire. Ms. Maxwell requests s...
|
| French | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. French'.
|
| Russell | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Russell v. United States'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | judicial body |
Referenced as the body Ms. Maxwell is making a request to.
|
| district court | judicial body |
Mentioned in a quote as having a duty to investigate claims of juror misconduct.
|
| United States | government |
Mentioned as a party in the cited cases 'United States v. French' and 'Russell v. United States'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
A potential evidentiary hearing is discussed regarding alleged juror misconduct.
The voir dire process, during which Juror No. 50 allegedly answered a material question falsely.
Relationships (2)
The document requests a subpoena for communications between these parties, suggesting a need to investigate a potential relationship or contact.
The document requests a subpoena for communications between Juror No. 50 and other jurors in the case, indicating a relationship as fellow jurors.
Key Quotes (2)
"an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim."Source
— United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018)
(Cited as legal precedent to support the need for an investigation into a plausible claim of juror misconduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg
Quote #1
"[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct."Source
— United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020)
(Cited as legal precedent regarding the appropriate procedure for investigating juror misconduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,395 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 55 of 66
experiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike.
II. The scope of any evidentiary hearing
Ms. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate.
When, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, “an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.” United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). “[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.” United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021).
A. Pre-hearing discovery
Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to:
1. Juror No. 50 to produce:
a. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case;
b. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case;
48
DOJ-OGR-00009747
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document