DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
750 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
750 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a prospective juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing asserts that the juror, who was a victim of a sex crime as a child, intentionally lied about his past to avoid being disqualified from a trial concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minors. The document cites various legal precedents to support its claims about juror partiality and the implications of false answers.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Prospective Juror |
The subject of the legal argument, accused of providing deliberately false answers during voir dire.
|
| McDonough |
Cited in legal precedent (McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57).
|
|
| Langford |
Cited in legal precedent (Langford, 990 F.2d at 68).
|
|
| Stewart |
Cited in legal precedent (Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303).
|
|
| Greer |
Cited in legal precedent (Greer, 285 F.3d at 173).
|
|
| Martinez-Salazar |
Cited in legal precedent (Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 316).
|
|
| Blackmun, J. | Justice |
Cited in a concurring opinion in the McDonough case.
|
| Brennan, J. | Justice |
Cited in a concurring opinion in the McDonough case.
|
| Smith |
Cited in legal precedent (Smith, 455 U.S. at 215-16).
|
|
| O'Connor, J. | Justice |
Cited in a concurring opinion.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document (DOJ-OGR-00009888).
|
Timeline (1 events)
A prospective juror, Juror No. 50, allegedly gave deliberately false answers during voir dire for a case involving sexual misconduct with minors. The juror, a childhood victim of a sex crime, is accused of lying to avoid disqualification.
Key Quotes (4)
"deliberateness"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
Quote #1
"particular lies [may] evidence[] partiality"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
Quote #2
"Yes."Source
— Juror No. 50
(The answer the document argues Juror No. 50 should have given to Question 25, and the answer he allegedly avoided giving.)
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
Quote #3
"[A]n analysis of bias is required even if the juror’s erroneous response was deliberate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,267 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 19 of 32
explained in the motion, the “deliberateness” of a prospective juror’s “particular lies [may] evidence[] partiality”6—think of a juror who deliberately lies because of a desire to sit on a jury and punish one of the parties to the case—but the lack of a deliberately false answer does not prove the absence of partiality.
In the end, under McDonough, Langford, Stewart and Greer, a deliberately false answer is not required.7
C. Juror No. 50’s answers were deliberately false.
Even so, the record more than supports the conclusion that Juror No. 50’s answers to Questions 25 and 48 (not to mention his answers during in-person voir dire about social media use) were deliberately false. Juror No. 50 knew he was the victim of a crime. He was a prospective juror in a case where the accused was on trial for alleged sexual misconduct with minors. As the childhood victim of a sex crime, answering questions in a case about a childhood sex crime, there is no plausible explanation for why Juror No. 50 did not answer Question 25, “Yes.” The only believable answer is that he knew that answering that question “Yes” would lead to further questions like, what was the crime, which would then lead to questions about what happened to him, which would end with his disqualification.
---
6 Greer, 285 F.3d at 173.
7 A deliberately false answer by a juror in voir dire is thus neither necessary nor sufficient to entitle a defendant to a new trial. It’s not necessary because, if a biased juror actually serves on a jury, structural error occurs, and a new trial is required even if the juror did not provide a deliberately false answer during voir dire. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 316; McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring); id. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment); Smith, 455 U.S. at 215-16; id. at 220-24 (O’Connor, J., concurring); Stewart, 433 F.3d at 303; Greer, 285 F.3d t 171-72; Langford, 990 F.2d at 68. And it’s not sufficient because a juror may not be biased even if he dishonestly answers a question during voir dire. Greer, 285 F.3d at 173 (“[A]n analysis of bias is required even if the juror’s erroneous response was deliberate.”).
14
DOJ-OGR-00009888
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document