DOJ-OGR-00009740.jpg
629 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
629 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that Juror No. 50's claim of not remembering a questionnaire question about personal experiences with sexual assault is not credible. The filing cites the questionnaire's explicit purpose of ensuring impartiality and points to the juror's post-verdict media interviews about his own victimhood as evidence that his omissions were intentional.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
The subject of the legal argument, accused of giving false answers on a questionnaire and of intentional conduct base...
|
| presiding judge | Judge |
Mentioned as the source of legal instructions for the jury, as explained in the juror questionnaire.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government agency |
Mentioned as the entity that conducted the voir dire and provided the questionnaire to evaluate potential jurors' imp...
|
Timeline (2 events)
The voir dire process for Juror No. 50, intended to evaluate whether he could be a fair and impartial juror.
Juror No. 50's post-verdict media press tour where he promoted himself and discussed his experience as a victim and his jury role.
Relationships (1)
The document describes the Court's interaction with Juror No. 50 during the voir dire process, where the Court's role was to evaluate the juror's fitness to serve impartially.
Key Quotes (2)
"The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge."Source
— Questionnaire
(Quoted from page 3 of Exhibit 1, the juror questionnaire, to establish its stated purpose.)
DOJ-OGR-00009740.jpg
Quote #1
"Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror’s background and experience to select a fair and impartial jury."Source
— Questionnaire
(Quoted from the juror questionnaire to explain why personal questions were necessary for jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00009740.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,653 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 48 of 66
or sexual harassment. Juror No. 50 said he did remember the questionnaire’s asking
whether his family or friends had been victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual
harassment. But as the questionnaire itself explained and as this Court told Juror No. 50
during his voir dire, the entire point of the process was to evaluate whether Juror No 50
could be fair and impartial. Ex. 1, p 3 (“The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine
whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence
presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge.”). The
questionnaire also told potential jurors that it would ask personal questions. Id.
(“Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please
understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each
juror’s background and experience to select a fair and impartial jury.”). A personal
experience as a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment is far more
relevant to fairness and impartiality than a family member’s or friend’s experience with
such assault, abuse, or harassment. Given the content of the questionnaire and its obvious
purpose, remembering a question about the latter but not the former is simply not
credible.
Fourth, Juror No. 50’s post-verdict conduct shows his false answers to the
questionnaire were intentional. Juror No. 50 went on a media press to promote himself,
his experience as a victim, and his role on the jury. He has given multiple interviews to
whether his family or friends had been victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual
harassment. But as the questionnaire itself explained and as this Court told Juror No. 50
during his voir dire, the entire point of the process was to evaluate whether Juror No 50
could be fair and impartial. Ex. 1, p 3 (“The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine
whether prospective jurors can decide this case impartially based upon the evidence
presented at trial and the legal instructions given by the presiding judge.”). The
questionnaire also told potential jurors that it would ask personal questions. Id.
(“Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please
understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each
juror’s background and experience to select a fair and impartial jury.”). A personal
experience as a victim of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or sexual harassment is far more
relevant to fairness and impartiality than a family member’s or friend’s experience with
such assault, abuse, or harassment. Given the content of the questionnaire and its obvious
purpose, remembering a question about the latter but not the former is simply not
credible.
Fourth, Juror No. 50’s post-verdict conduct shows his false answers to the
questionnaire were intentional. Juror No. 50 went on a media press to promote himself,
his experience as a victim, and his role on the jury. He has given multiple interviews to
41
DOJ-OGR-00009740
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document