DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
973 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
973 KB
Summary
This legal document analyzes the credibility of Juror 50, concluding he should not be struck for cause. It argues that his prior experience with sexual abuse did not impede his ability to be a fair juror and that his subsequent press interviews were a result of naivety, not deception. The document cites the juror's own testimony and demeanor to support the claim that his failure to disclose information was an inadvertent error.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The central figure discussed in the document, whose credibility and fitness to serve as a juror are being evaluated.
|
| Greer |
Mentioned in a legal citation (Greer, 285 F.3d at 171) regarding findings of actual bias.
|
|
| Torres |
Mentioned in a legal citation (United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 44) quoted within the Greer citation.
|
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case, in the context of prospective jurors having little exposure to him.
|
| Juror 7 | Juror |
Listed as an example of a juror who reported little to no exposure to the defendant.
|
| Juror 20 | Juror |
Listed as an example of a juror who reported little to no exposure to the defendant.
|
| Juror 37 | Juror |
Listed as an example of a juror who reported little to no exposure to the defendant.
|
| Juror 54 | Juror |
Listed as an example of a juror who reported little to no exposure to the defendant.
|
| Juror 89 | Juror |
Listed as an example of a juror who reported little to no exposure to the defendant.
|
| Juror 151 | Juror |
Listed as an example of a juror who reported little to no exposure to the defendant.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned in relation to providing instructions to the jury.
|
| foreign press | media |
Mentioned as the recipient of two of Juror 50's three interviews.
|
Relationships (1)
Juror 50 served on the jury for a case involving defendant Jeffrey Epstein.
Key Quotes (5)
"[a]bsolutely in no way"Source
— Juror 50
(Describing how his prior experience with sexual abuse would not interfere with his ability to assess witness credibility.)
DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
Quote #1
"finding of actual bias is based upon determinations of demeanor and credibility that are peculiarly within a trial judge’s province."Source
— United States v. Torres, as quoted in Greer
(A legal proposition cited to support the court's assessment of Juror 50.)
DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
Quote #2
"didn’t even know that this trial was even happening"Source
— Juror 50
(Describing his family and friends' lack of awareness of the trial, which informed his belief that his interviews would go unnoticed by them.)
DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
Quote #3
"a little article about a juror giving their experience wouldn’t be . . . really in the news at all."Source
— Juror 50
(Explaining his expectation about the limited public impact of his press interviews.)
DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
Quote #4
"I didn’t think this would happen . . . if I lied deliberately I wouldn’t have told a soul. I certainly wouldn’t have put myself in a position . . . this position that I’m in now, potentially any sort of criminal charges, I just wouldn’t have done it. It was an honest mistake . . . ."Source
— Juror 50
(Testimony from a March 8, 2022 transcript, explaining that his failure to disclose was an honest mistake, not a deliberate lie.)
DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,150 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 648 Filed 03/15/22 Page 12 of 16
his ability to render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial and the Court’s
instructions as to the law, and that “[a]bsolutely in no way” would his experience with prior sexual
abuse interfere with his ability to assess the credibility of witnesses alleging sexual abuse. (Id. at
25:23-26:10). Juror 50 answered the questions quickly and forthrightly, and his demeanor evinced
that he was a fair and serious juror who deeply regretted making an inadvertent error. See Greer,
285 F.3d at 171 (quoting United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 44 (2d Cir. 1997), for the proposition
that a “finding of actual bias is based upon determinations of demeanor and credibility that are
peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.”).4
instructions as to the law, and that “[a]bsolutely in no way” would his experience with prior sexual
abuse interfere with his ability to assess the credibility of witnesses alleging sexual abuse. (Id. at
25:23-26:10). Juror 50 answered the questions quickly and forthrightly, and his demeanor evinced
that he was a fair and serious juror who deeply regretted making an inadvertent error. See Greer,
285 F.3d at 171 (quoting United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 44 (2d Cir. 1997), for the proposition
that a “finding of actual bias is based upon determinations of demeanor and credibility that are
peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.”).4
On this record, it is evident that Juror 50 would not have been struck for cause. Of the 58
individuals who were qualified to serve as jurors, eight individuals disclosed in their written
questionnaires that they themselves had been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or
individuals who were qualified to serve as jurors, eight individuals disclosed in their written
questionnaires that they themselves had been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or
4 Juror 50’s answers about whether he thought his family or friends would learn about his sexual
abuse through his press interviews do not undermine his credibility. While the trial participants,
who have been attentive to developments in this case for years, quickly learned of Juror 50’s
statements, Juror 50 reasonably thought differently about his friends and family. As Juror 50
explained, his family and friends “didn’t even know that this trial was even happening” when he
revealed that he had been on the jury through social media—media in which he did not reveal his
own experience with abuse. (Mar. 8, 2022 Tr. at 42:15-43:9). Juror 50 therefore expected that “a
little article about a juror giving their experience wouldn’t be . . . really in the news at all.” (Id. at
42:21-23). His family and friends appear not to have consumed media about the trial—just like
many of the actual and prospective jurors in this case, who reported no or almost no exposure to
the defendant or Jeffrey Epstein on their questionnaires. (See, e.g., Juror 7; Juror 20; Juror 37;
Juror 54; Juror 89; Juror 151). It is even more unlikely that they would learn about his experience
with abuse given that Juror 50 did not use his last name, disconnecting his press interviews from
his Google search results, and that he gave two of his three interviews to foreign press. (See Dkt.
No. 643 at 8-9). And Juror 50 did not think that his interviews would trigger significant public
attention and further proceedings in the case because he had attempted to answer the questions
honestly and had nothing to hide. (Mar. 8, 2022 Tr. at 22:23-23:5 (“I didn’t think this would
happen . . . if I lied deliberately I wouldn’t have told a soul. I certainly wouldn’t have put myself
in a position . . . this position that I’m in now, potentially any sort of criminal charges, I just
wouldn’t have done it. It was an honest mistake . . . .”). At worst, Juror 50’s expectations about
the consequences of his interviews reflect naivety; they do not reflect deception.
abuse through his press interviews do not undermine his credibility. While the trial participants,
who have been attentive to developments in this case for years, quickly learned of Juror 50’s
statements, Juror 50 reasonably thought differently about his friends and family. As Juror 50
explained, his family and friends “didn’t even know that this trial was even happening” when he
revealed that he had been on the jury through social media—media in which he did not reveal his
own experience with abuse. (Mar. 8, 2022 Tr. at 42:15-43:9). Juror 50 therefore expected that “a
little article about a juror giving their experience wouldn’t be . . . really in the news at all.” (Id. at
42:21-23). His family and friends appear not to have consumed media about the trial—just like
many of the actual and prospective jurors in this case, who reported no or almost no exposure to
the defendant or Jeffrey Epstein on their questionnaires. (See, e.g., Juror 7; Juror 20; Juror 37;
Juror 54; Juror 89; Juror 151). It is even more unlikely that they would learn about his experience
with abuse given that Juror 50 did not use his last name, disconnecting his press interviews from
his Google search results, and that he gave two of his three interviews to foreign press. (See Dkt.
No. 643 at 8-9). And Juror 50 did not think that his interviews would trigger significant public
attention and further proceedings in the case because he had attempted to answer the questions
honestly and had nothing to hide. (Mar. 8, 2022 Tr. at 22:23-23:5 (“I didn’t think this would
happen . . . if I lied deliberately I wouldn’t have told a soul. I certainly wouldn’t have put myself
in a position . . . this position that I’m in now, potentially any sort of criminal charges, I just
wouldn’t have done it. It was an honest mistake . . . .”). At worst, Juror 50’s expectations about
the consequences of his interviews reflect naivety; they do not reflect deception.
10
DOJ-OGR-00010302
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document