DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg
741 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
741 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses a hypothetical scenario involving 'Juror 50' and whether a past history of sexual abuse, if disclosed, would have led to a successful challenge for cause. The author argues that the Court would not have automatically dismissed the juror, citing its handling of eight other jurors with similar experiences where follow-up questions were used to confirm impartiality. Because Juror 50 did not disclose any such history, the Government now believes a limited hearing is warranted to ask these questions.
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned as the appellate court that would be less inclined to disturb a trial judge's discretion in jury selection.
|
| Government | government agency |
Stated as believing that a limited hearing is warranted to ask Juror 50 questions about potential sexual abuse history.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-11-16
A court transcript from this date is cited as evidence of the court asking follow-up questions to jurors who disclosed experiences with sexual harassment, abuse, or assault.
Court
jurors
The document discusses the process of jury selection (empanelling) and challenges for cause within a jury trial.
courtroom
Court
jurors
parties
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the place where the district court observes the jury and senses the atmosphere.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"observes the jury on a day to day basis"Source
— Greer, 285 F.3d at 171
(Quoted to explain why a district court is in the best position to handle jury selection challenges.)
DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg
Quote #1
"is in the best position to sense the atmosphere of the courtroom."Source
— Greer, 285 F.3d at 171
(Quoted to support the deference given to a trial judge's decisions on jury empanelling.)
DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,224 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 22 of 49
are few aspects of a jury trial where [the Second Circuit] would be less inclined to disturb a trial
judge’s exercise of discretion, absent clear abuse, then in ruling on challenges for cause in the
empanelling of a jury.’” Id. (quoting Greer, 285 F.3d at 172). This is because the district court
“observes the jury on a day to day basis” and therefore “is in the best position to sense the
atmosphere of the courtroom.” Greer, 285 F.3d at 171 (quotations and citations omitted) .
judge’s exercise of discretion, absent clear abuse, then in ruling on challenges for cause in the
empanelling of a jury.’” Id. (quoting Greer, 285 F.3d at 172). This is because the district court
“observes the jury on a day to day basis” and therefore “is in the best position to sense the
atmosphere of the courtroom.” Greer, 285 F.3d at 171 (quotations and citations omitted) .
How, then, would the Court have ruled on a hypothetical for cause challenge if Juror 50
had disclosed that he was a survivor of sexual abuse? The Court’s decisions with respect to
similarly situated jurors provide clear evidence. Of the 58 jurors who were ultimately qualified,
eight jurors disclosed that they themselves had been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse,
or sexual assault. With respect to each, the Court asked a few follow-up questions (and sometimes
only one question), focusing on the ultimate issue of whether the juror could be fair and impartial
notwithstanding the juror’s experience. (See Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 18-19, 52-57, 200, 207-08, 259,
293, 532, 635). In each case, the juror affirmed that he or she could be fair, and not only did the
Court not strike the juror for cause, neither party even moved to do so on these grounds. For good
reason: People who have experienced sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault can be
fair and impartial jurors.
had disclosed that he was a survivor of sexual abuse? The Court’s decisions with respect to
similarly situated jurors provide clear evidence. Of the 58 jurors who were ultimately qualified,
eight jurors disclosed that they themselves had been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse,
or sexual assault. With respect to each, the Court asked a few follow-up questions (and sometimes
only one question), focusing on the ultimate issue of whether the juror could be fair and impartial
notwithstanding the juror’s experience. (See Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 18-19, 52-57, 200, 207-08, 259,
293, 532, 635). In each case, the juror affirmed that he or she could be fair, and not only did the
Court not strike the juror for cause, neither party even moved to do so on these grounds. For good
reason: People who have experienced sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault can be
fair and impartial jurors.
Thus, if Juror 50 had disclosed a history of sexual abuse, the Court would not have
immediately granted a challenge for cause, as the defendant’s brief suggests. Instead, the Court
properly would have asked follow-up questions designed to determine whether Juror 50 could be
fair and impartial notwithstanding that experience and could decide the case based on the evidence
and the law. Here, because Juror 50 did not disclose any history of sexual abuse, the Court did not
have occasion to ask such follow-up questions. Accordingly, the Government believes that a
limited hearing is warranted to ask Juror 50 such questions. If Juror 50 credibly states that he
immediately granted a challenge for cause, as the defendant’s brief suggests. Instead, the Court
properly would have asked follow-up questions designed to determine whether Juror 50 could be
fair and impartial notwithstanding that experience and could decide the case based on the evidence
and the law. Here, because Juror 50 did not disclose any history of sexual abuse, the Court did not
have occasion to ask such follow-up questions. Accordingly, the Government believes that a
limited hearing is warranted to ask Juror 50 such questions. If Juror 50 credibly states that he
20
DOJ-OGR-00009820
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document