DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse denied her the ability to use a peremptory challenge. The court distinguishes the applicable federal law (the McDonough standard) from the New Jersey state law cited by the defendant and begins its analysis of the first prong of the McDonough test, noting that Juror 50 did provide inaccurate answers on a questionnaire.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Litigant |
An unnamed defendant who is arguing for a new trial based on a juror's failure to disclose information.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror whose failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse is the basis for the Defendant's motion for a new trial. ...
|
| Tanner |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'See Tanner, 483 U.S. at 120–21'.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'Maxwell Br. at 46–47'.
|
|
| Scher |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'State v. Scher, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019–20 (N.J. App. Div. 1994)'.
|
|
| McDonough |
Mentioned in the context of the 'McDonough' legal standard for granting a new trial based on juror dishonesty.
|
|
| Shaoul |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'see also Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 816'.
|
|
| Torres |
Mentioned in the legal citation 'Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 n.4'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| New Jersey state courts | government agency |
Mentioned as having a different rule than federal court regarding peremptory challenges.
|
| federal court | government agency |
The jurisdiction in which the current case is being heard, whose law is being applied.
|
| district court | government agency |
Mentioned in a quote regarding challenges for cause.
|
| The Court | government agency |
Refers to the court presiding over the current case.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the context of its state law and state courts.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"rule differs from its federal counterpart"Source
— State v. Scher
(Quoted from a New Jersey court decision explaining the difference in law regarding juror challenges.)
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
Quote #1
"a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."Source
— McDonough
(A quote from the McDonough case establishing the standard for a new trial based on juror responses.)
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
Quote #2
"wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process"Source
— McDonough
(A quote explaining that a simple desire to redo the jury selection is not sufficient grounds for a new trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
Quote #3
"[u]nlike challenges for cause, peremptory strikes are not constitutionally required."Source
— Torres
(A quote from the Torres case explaining a legal distinction between types of juror challenges.)
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,064 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 15 of 40
critical role in those extreme cases where dissatisfied litigants may be tempted to harass or tamper with jurors in an attempt to impeach the verdict. See Tanner, 483 U.S. at 120–21.
Finally, what is not at issue in resolving this motion is whether the Defendant would have exercised a peremptory strike against this juror had he accurately disclosed his prior sexual abuse. Although the Defendant argues in her pre-hearing briefing that she is also entitled to a new trial because Juror 50’s failure to disclose his history denied her the opportunity to exercise her peremptory challenges, that is not the law in federal court. Indeed, in making this argument she cites only decisions that relied on New Jersey state law. Maxwell Br. at 46–47. But the rule in New Jersey state courts is different than the rule that binds this Court. See State v. Scher, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019–20 (N.J. App. Div. 1994) (explaining that New Jersey’s “rule differs from its federal counterpart” of McDonough). Under McDonough, a defendant seeking a new trial must show that “a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” 464 U.S. at 555–56 (emphasis added). A desire to “wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process” is not enough. Id.; see also Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 816 (concluding that a defendant failed to satisfy the second prong of McDonough where the defendant “may certainly exclude such jurors by the use of peremptory challenges, but he has no basis for arguing that a district court is required to sustain such a challenge for cause”). That difference arises in part from the fact that “[u]nlike challenges for cause, peremptory strikes are not constitutionally required.” Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 n.4.
III. ANALYSIS
A. McDonough Prong One
The Court begins with what Juror 50’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing makes plain: Juror 50 provided inaccurate answers to Questions 25, 48, and 49 of the questionnaire. For each
15
DOJ-OGR-00010338
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document