DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
682 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
682 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The filing refutes the government's arguments concerning 'finality' and the 'disfavor' of new trial motions. It asserts that the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated, citing legal precedents that establish the seating of a biased juror as a structural error requiring the conviction to be reversed.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned as the person entitled to a new trial, whose guilt was determined by the jury.
|
| McCourty | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. McCourty'.
|
| Ferguson | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Ferguson'.
|
| Parker | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal precedent 'Parker, 385 U.S. at 366'.
|
| Martinez-Salazar | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the legal precedent 'Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 316'.
|
| Nelson | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Nelson'.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Government | Government agency |
Referred to as 'the government', whose response and policy concerns regarding new trials are being challenged.
|
| DOJ-OGR | Government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document (DOJ-OGR-00009880), likely a document control number from the Department of Jus...
|
Timeline (2 events)
The trial of Ms. Maxwell, where a jury determined her guilt, is the subject of this motion for a new trial.
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal dispute where Ms. Maxwell's legal team is arguing against the government's position in a criminal case, specifically regarding her right to a new trial.
Key Quotes (3)
"a district court must find that there is ‘a real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted.’"Source
— the government (quoting United States v. McCourty)
(Presented as the government's incorrect standard for granting a new trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
Quote #1
"[T]he seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause” is structural error and it “require[s] reversal."Source
— Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 316
(Cited as legal precedent to argue that seating a biased juror necessitates a reversal of the conviction.)
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
Quote #2
"[T]he empanelment of a jury on which [a] biased juror sat [means that] the defendants in this case were convicted, in contravention of the Sixth Amendment and due process, by a jury that cannot be deemed to have been fully impartial."Source
— United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 204 (2d Cir. 2002)
(Cited to support the argument that a conviction by a jury with a biased member violates constitutional rights.)
DOJ-OGR-00009880.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,973 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 11 of 32
childhood sexual abuse; and (3) had he answered the questions accurately he would have been challenged for cause and disqualified.
The Law
I. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial.
A. The government’s policy concerns—the abstract interest in “finality” and the so-called “disfavor” with which new trial motions are viewed— are misplaced.
The government’s response is conspicuous in that it does not begin with the law governing new trial motions based on juror bias. Instead, the government sets the table with appeals to “finality,” statements that new trial motions are “disfavored,” and implications that courts should turn a blind eye to juror misconduct because to do otherwise would expose jurors to harassment and intimidation. Resp. at 10-11. None of these concerns has any purchase here.
In the government’s view, the jury in this case “finally” determined Ms. Maxwell’s guilt. To be entitled to a new trial, says the government, “a district court must find that there is ‘a real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted.’” Resp. at 10 (quoting United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 475 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2001))). That is not correct.
Everyone accused of a crime is entitled a trial by a fair trial and impartial jury. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. That constitutional promise demands twelve fair and impartial jurors. Parker, 385 U.S. at 366. “[T]he seating of any juror who should have been dismissed for cause” is structural error and it “require[s] reversal.” Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. at 316; United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 204 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he empanelment of a jury on which [a] biased juror sat [means that] the defendants in this case were convicted, in contravention of the Sixth Amendment and due process, by a jury that cannot be deemed to have been fully impartial.”).
6
DOJ-OGR-00009880
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document