DOJ-OGR-00021526.jpg
617 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
617 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court order filed on February 25, 2022, addressing a motion from the Defendant regarding potential juror misconduct. The Court orders a limited evidentiary hearing to question Juror 50 under oath about statements made to the media after the trial, which cast doubt on the truthfulness of their answers on the jury selection questionnaire. The Court denies the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and discovery, finding the standard is only met concerning Juror 50's questionnaire responses and not their social media use or the conduct of other jurors.
People (2)
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Court | Government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, which is ordering an evidentiary hearing for Juror 50.
|
| The Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, which informed the Court about Juror 50's post-verdict interviews.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2022-01-05
The Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews.
Relationships (3)
The Court is ordering a hearing to question Juror 50 under oath about potential misconduct during jury selection.
The Defendant filed a motion that the Court is addressing. The Court granted part of the Defendant's request (a hearing for Juror 50) but denied the request for a broader hearing.
The Government informed the Court of Juror 50's media interviews and conceded that the standard for a hearing was met.
Key Quotes (1)
"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety"Source
— The Court
(The Court is citing a legal standard to describe the nature of Juror 50's post-trial statements, which suggest a false statement was made during jury selection.)
DOJ-OGR-00021526.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,075 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page96 of 217
SA-350
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 21
SA-350
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 21
order to resolve the motion at this stage, the Court would have to accept these unsworn statements made to media outlets as true and reach factual determinations that are not available on the current record.
Accordingly, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant’s motion. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding an evidentiary hearing is met as to Juror 50’s answer to Question 48 of the questionnaire. The Court further concludes that Juror 50’s response to Question 25 is relevant to the inquiry. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses to Questions 25 and 48. Such statements are “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety”—namely a false statement during jury selection—has occurred. To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored. Conversely, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to Juror 50’s use of social media nor the conduct of any other juror. The Court therefore ORDERS a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Defendant’s request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery is DENIED.
I. Background
On December 29, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in this case, finding the Defendant guilty of five counts. A week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to
2
DOJ-OGR-00021526
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document