DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This document is page 31 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments regarding a motion for a new trial, specifically discussing the legal standards for juror misconduct and false answers during voir dire (jury selection). The text cites precedents such as United States v. Langford and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Brennan | Supreme Court Justice |
Cited in the legal argument regarding McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.
|
| Juror Payton | Juror (in cited case) |
A juror in the McDonough case who remained silent during voir dire regarding personal injuries.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Court whose ruling in United States v. Langford is being cited.
|
|
| McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. |
Party in the cited case law.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00009723).
|
Key Quotes (3)
"We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
Quote #1
"proper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
Quote #2
"Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in th[e] . . . determination of actual bias."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,908 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 31 of 66
invidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).11 As the Second Circuit held in Langford:
We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate, for though the McDonough Court began with the inadvertent response before it, it stated that the further showing of cause must be made even after a juror’s “failure to answer honestly,” and it hypothesized that there could be various “motives for concealing.” Concurring in the judgment, Justice Brennan similarly stated that a second element—bias—should be required even if the juror’s erroneous response was deliberate. Thus, he stated that the
proper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant. . .
. . . Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in th[e] . . . determination of actual bias.
Langford, 990 F.2d at 68 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)).
The seminal case addressing a juror’s false answers during voir dire is McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. McDonough was a products liability action in which Juror Payton remained silent when the district court asked, “how many of you [potential jurors] have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury [in] an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that result in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering?” 464 U.S. at 550. After trial, it was discovered
11 This caselaw uses “deliberate” and “intentional” interchangeably.
24
DOJ-OGR-00009723
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document