DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg
699 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
699 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello legal precedents is incorrect in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, the alleged misconduct by Juror No. 50 occurred outside the jury room, specifically through false answers during voir dire and subsequent self-publicity. The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and that the juror's own actions in seeking the limelight are the reason the misconduct came to light.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Tanner | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned as a legal precedent (Tanner, 483 U.S. at 119) invoked by the government, which the author argues is irrele...
|
| Ianniello | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned as a legal precedent (Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543) invoked by the government, which the author argues is mis...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
A party in the current case whose motion for an evidentiary hearing is being discussed. The government concedes her e...
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
A juror in Ms. Maxwell's case, alleged to have given false answers during voir dire and to have sought publicity afte...
|
| Moon | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned as the source of a quote in the Ianniello case (United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned for its decision in the Tanner case, which was motivated by "shielding jury deliberations from public scrut...
|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals mentioned for its cautionary note in the Ianniello case.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The voir dire (jury selection) for Ms. Maxwell's trial, during which Juror No. 50 allegedly gave false answers.
An evidentiary hearing requested by Ms. Maxwell, to which the government concedes she is entitled.
Ms. Maxwell
government
Juror No. 50 participated in several interviews with journalists and allowed himself to be videotaped.
Juror No. 50
journalists
Relationships (1)
The document states that Ms. Maxwell's motion is based on Juror No. 50's alleged false answers during her trial's voir dire, which she only discovered because the juror sought publicity after the trial.
Key Quotes (2)
"shielding jury deliberations from public scrutiny"Source
— Supreme Court (as described by the author)
(Described as the motivation for the Supreme Court's decision in the Tanner case.)
DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg
Quote #1
"a post-trial jury hearing must be held when a party comes forward with ‘clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence . . . that a specific, non-speculative impropriety has occurred.’"Source
— Second Circuit (quoting United States v. Moon)
(Quoted from the Ianniello decision to explain the standard for ordering a post-trial evidentiary hearing about jury conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,051 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 32
The government’s invocation of Tanner and Ianniello is strikingly disingenuous. Both cases involved alleged conduct during trial and, crucially, during deliberations. The interest in “shielding jury deliberations from public scrutiny” is what motivated the Supreme Court’s decision in Tanner, 483 U.S. at 119, and the Second Circuit’s cautionary note in Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543.
In this case, by contrast, [REDACTED], conduct that occurred outside the jury room. The reluctance of courts to second-guess jury deliberations by inquiring into how the jury reached its decision simply has no relevance here, and neither do Tanner or Ianniello.
In fact, the government’s reliance on Ianniello is doubly wrong, because the Second Circuit there set aside any reluctance it might have had to question the conduct of deliberations by ordering the defendant’s requested evidentiary hearing. As the Court explained, “a post-trial jury hearing must be held when a party comes forward with ‘clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence . . . that a specific, non-speculative impropriety has occurred.’” Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543 (quoting United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983)).⁴ Here, of course, the government concedes Ms. Maxwell’s entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.
The government cannot with a straight face claim that Ms. Maxwell’s motion risks exposing Juror No. 50 to harassment and intimidation. Let’s be clear. The only reason Ms. Maxwell knows of Juror No. 50’s false answers during voir dire is that Juror No. 50 has sought out the limelight. He has sat for several interviews with journalists, he has allowed himself to be videotaped, he has Tweeted and publicized himself on social media, and he has even participated
⁴ To be clear, this standard does not apply to Ms. Maxwell’s claim; it applies when a new trial motion alleges misconduct during deliberations. Ianniello, 866 F.3d at 543; Moon, 718 F.3d at 1234.
8
DOJ-OGR-00009203
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document