DOJ-OGR-00009742.jpg
716 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
716 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers during voir dire, particularly concerning his use of social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The document contends that this pattern of dishonesty, combined with his post-trial media engagement, casts doubt on the truthfulness of all his answers, including those meant to screen for bias against the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. It also mentions a letter from the government, published by the media, which is described as an attempt to silence the juror and circumvent court rules.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Accused of giving false answers during voir dire regarding social media use and of speaking to media outlets after th...
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant (implied) |
Mentioned in the context of jury questions designed to expose bias against her (Questions 42-50).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Company |
Juror No. 50 falsely claimed he only used Facebook and Instagram and had deleted his account.
|
|
| Company |
Juror No. 50 falsely claimed he only used Facebook and Instagram and had deleted his account, but it appears he did n...
|
|
| Company |
A social media platform that Juror No. 50 used, contrary to his claims during voir dire.
|
|
| Court | Government agency |
Mentioned as the body that would have explored the juror's answers, emphasized the importance of voir dire, and had i...
|
Timeline (2 events)
Juror No. 50 gave false answers to questions 25 and 48 during voir dire, specifically about his social media usage.
Relationships (1)
The document discusses the juror's false answers to questions specifically designed to expose bias against Ms. Maxwell, suggesting his truthfulness is critical to the fairness of the verdict against her.
Key Quotes (1)
"smoke out"Source
— this Court
(During the October 21 hearing, the Court expressed confidence that the voir dire process could 'smoke out' jurors who did not tell the truth.)
DOJ-OGR-00009742.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,913 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 50 of 66
Fifth, Juror No. 50’s false answer to question 48 was not a one-off mistake. He also falsely answered question 25. Then, during voir dire, he claimed that he used only Facebook and Instagram and that he had deleted both. In fact, he also used Twitter, and it appears he did not delete his Instagram account. This pattern of false answers supports a finding of intent and belies mere inadvertence.
Finally, this case is not like other cases in which a juror may have given a false answer to avoid embarrassment,. Juror No. 50 has spoken to numerous media outlets about his service as a juror, has freely admitted that he is the victim of sexual abuse and sexual assault, and has done the bare minimum to conceal his identity, allowing himself to be identified by his first name while posing for pictures and being video recorded. Juror No. 50 has not shunned the limelight. He has reveled in it.
D. Had Juror No. 50 answered Questions 25 and 48 truthfully, the parties and the Court would have explored whether his other answers were false.
Regardless of whether Juror No. 50’s answers were intentional lies or inadvertent misstatements, his false answers to Questions 25 and 48 cast doubt on the truthfulness of all his answers, including most particularly those questions designed to expose bias based on the nature of charges against Ms. Maxwell—Questions 42-50.
At the October 21 hearing, this Court emphasized the importance of voir dire, and it expressed confidence that it could “smoke out” jurors who did not tell the truth:
letter was written by the government with full knowledge that it would be published by the media and effectively silence Juror No. 50. The submission of the letter was an end run around this Court’s orders regarding Local Rule 23.1 and Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
43
DOJ-OGR-00009742
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document