DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
753 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
753 KB
Summary
This legal document is page 3 of a court filing from October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the court's reasoning for denying a defendant's request for attorney-conducted voir dire. The defendant argued for it based on significant pretrial publicity and the case's sensitive nature, but the court concluded that court-conducted voir dire is sufficient to ensure fairness and prevent potential prejudice, citing legal precedents.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal motion, who is requesting attorney-conducted voir dire.
|
| attorneys | Legal Counsel |
Mentioned as the defendant's legal representatives who she believes have 'more in-depth knowledge of the case'.
|
| counsel | Legal Counsel |
Referred to as the legal representatives for the parties in the case.
|
| jurors | Juror |
Potential members of the jury whose impartiality is being assessed during voir dire.
|
| Saipov | Litigant in a cited case |
Cited in 'Saipov, 2020 WL 958527, at *1' as a legal precedent regarding court-conducted voir dire.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case, responsible for conducting voir dire and making rulings.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the Southern District of New York court, cited in a 1983 legal case.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document (DOJ-OGR-00005252), likely a Department of Justice identifier.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in a case citation.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states the defendant believes 'her attorneys would be more capable of discovering' information and have 'more in-depth knowledge of the case'.
Key Quotes (6)
"sensitive subject matter"Source
— defendant
(A reason cited by the defendant for why attorney-conducted voir dire is needed.)
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
Quote #1
"should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted voir dire after the Court’s general voir dire"Source
— defendant
(The defendant's specific request to the Court regarding the jury selection process.)
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
Quote #2
"more in-depth knowledge of the case"Source
— defendant
(The defendant's claim about why her attorneys are better suited to question potential jurors.)
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
Quote #3
"assures that the parties do not stray into impermissible areas that could potentially taint the prospective jurors’ answers or point of view [and] permits each party the opportunity to evaluate the questions proposed by their adversary"Source
— Saipov, 2020 WL 958527
(A quote from a legal precedent holding that court-conducted voir dire prevents prejudice.)
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
Quote #4
"questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid."Source
— defendant
(The defendant's argument against voir dire being conducted solely by the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
Quote #5
"empanelling of fair and impartial juries"Source
— S.D.N.Y. 1983 case
(A quote from a cited case noting that court-conducted voir dire has successfully resulted in fair juries.)
DOJ-OGR-00005252.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,282 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 355 Filed 10/18/21 Page 3 of 5
Page 3
defendant claims that because this case has received significant pretrial publicity and the charges
involve a “sensitive subject matter,” the Court “should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted
voir dire after the Court’s general voir dire,” but she does not identify what information she
believes that her attorneys would be more capable of discovering than the Court. (Dkt. No. 342 at
1, 10). Even if counsel identify specific or additional issues the defendant believes her attorneys
should be able to explore in light of, as the defendant claims, the attorneys’ “more in-depth
knowledge of the case” (id. at 11), counsel are free to propose additional questions that the Court
may ask, and the Court is in the best position to consider whether such inquiry is appropriate and,
if so, how to pose such questions in a way that is fair to the interests of all parties and the potential
jurors. Even if counsel attempt to ask their additional questions in an even-handed way, counsel
may easily and inadvertently step over the line and significantly prejudice the other side. See
Saipov, 2020 WL 958527, at *1 (holding that court-conducted voir dire “assures that the parties
do not stray into impermissible areas that could potentially taint the prospective jurors’ answers or
point of view [and] permits each party the opportunity to evaluate the questions proposed by their
adversary”).
involve a “sensitive subject matter,” the Court “should grant a limited period of attorney-conducted
voir dire after the Court’s general voir dire,” but she does not identify what information she
believes that her attorneys would be more capable of discovering than the Court. (Dkt. No. 342 at
1, 10). Even if counsel identify specific or additional issues the defendant believes her attorneys
should be able to explore in light of, as the defendant claims, the attorneys’ “more in-depth
knowledge of the case” (id. at 11), counsel are free to propose additional questions that the Court
may ask, and the Court is in the best position to consider whether such inquiry is appropriate and,
if so, how to pose such questions in a way that is fair to the interests of all parties and the potential
jurors. Even if counsel attempt to ask their additional questions in an even-handed way, counsel
may easily and inadvertently step over the line and significantly prejudice the other side. See
Saipov, 2020 WL 958527, at *1 (holding that court-conducted voir dire “assures that the parties
do not stray into impermissible areas that could potentially taint the prospective jurors’ answers or
point of view [and] permits each party the opportunity to evaluate the questions proposed by their
adversary”).
The defendant claims that “questioning conducted exclusively by the Court further
hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a
subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid.” (Dkt. No. 342 at 13). The
defendant’s motion does not expand upon this conclusory assertion, but instead cites “research”
that appears to broadly recommend in-depth voir dire. (Id. at 13-14). But there is no reason to
hampers the ability to uncover important information about jurors because it places jurors in a
subordinate position heightening their reluctance to be candid.” (Dkt. No. 342 at 13). The
defendant’s motion does not expand upon this conclusory assertion, but instead cites “research”
that appears to broadly recommend in-depth voir dire. (Id. at 13-14). But there is no reason to
1428 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (rejecting defense request for attorney-conducted voir dire and noting that
court-conducted voir dire has resulted in the “empanelling of fair and impartial juries”; “And this
has been true of cases that have attracted in advance of trial the widest publicity in the news media
over extended periods of time.”).
court-conducted voir dire has resulted in the “empanelling of fair and impartial juries”; “And this
has been true of cases that have attracted in advance of trial the widest publicity in the news media
over extended periods of time.”).
DOJ-OGR-00005252
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document