DOJ-OGR-00009160.jpg
738 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court brief (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
738 KB
Summary
This document is page 41 of a legal brief filed on February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against granting an evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct allegations, citing precedents from cases involving El Chapo (Guzman Loera), Bin Laden, and Martha Stewart. The argument asserts that unsworn newspaper reports or anonymous claims are insufficient evidence to warrant a juror inquiry.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Guzman Loera | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in legal precedent (El Chapo) regarding juror inquiry standards.
|
| Bin Laden | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in legal precedent regarding new trial motions based on newspaper articles.
|
| Martha Stewart | Defendant (Case Citation) |
Cited in legal precedent regarding post-trial motions alleging juror omissions.
|
| Juror (Anonymous) | Juror |
Referenced in the current case ('here') as having experienced sexual abuse, based on a newspaper report.
|
| Moon | Case Citation Name |
Cited case regarding evidence standards.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court (S.D.N.Y.) |
Jurisdiction for cited cases (Bin Laden).
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Affirmed decisions in cited cases (Bin Laden, Stewart).
|
|
| Citibank |
Former employer of a juror in the Martha Stewart case, mentioned regarding firing for drug abuse/expense accounting.
|
|
| DOJ |
Dept of Justice, indicated in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009160.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York
|
|
|
Mentioned in case citation 'In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr.'
|
Relationships (2)
Text mentions a juror in Stewart's case was alleged to have been fired from Citibank.
Guzman Loera decision quotes Moon case.
Key Quotes (3)
"The same is true here: a newspaper report about an anonymous juror who had experienced sexual abuse is not 'incontrovertible evidence' that juror misconduct occurred."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009160.jpg
Quote #1
"unsworn, uncorroborated statements that one unidentified juror made to a magazine reporter do not constitute the 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009160.jpg
Quote #2
"unsworn snippet of hearsay within a newspaper article, is far less substantial than the sworn affidavits present in cases where evidentiary hearings have been ordered."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009160.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,188 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 41 of 49
affirmed, holding that “the unsworn, uncorroborated statements that one unidentified juror made
to a magazine reporter do not constitute the ‘clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible
evidence’ requiring any juror inquiry beyond that already made.” Guzman Loera, 2022 WL
211199, at *12 (quoting Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234). The same is true here: a newspaper report about
an anonymous juror who had experienced sexual abuse is not “incontrovertible evidence” that
juror misconduct occurred.
to a magazine reporter do not constitute the ‘clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible
evidence’ requiring any juror inquiry beyond that already made.” Guzman Loera, 2022 WL
211199, at *12 (quoting Moon, 718 F.2d at 1234). The same is true here: a newspaper report about
an anonymous juror who had experienced sexual abuse is not “incontrovertible evidence” that
juror misconduct occurred.
Similarly, in United States v. Bin Laden, one defendant sought a new trial based on a
sentence in a newspaper article, which, based on interviews with jurors, stated that “[o]ne juror
used the internet at home to research a difficult legal concept concerning [one] defendant.” The
district court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, holding that “[t]his single sentence, an
unsworn snippet of hearsay within a newspaper article, is far less substantial than the sworn
affidavits present in cases where evidentiary hearings have been ordered.” United States v. Bin
Laden, No. S7R 98 Cr. 1023 (KTD), 2005 WL 287404, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2005), aff’d sub
nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008).
sentence in a newspaper article, which, based on interviews with jurors, stated that “[o]ne juror
used the internet at home to research a difficult legal concept concerning [one] defendant.” The
district court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, holding that “[t]his single sentence, an
unsworn snippet of hearsay within a newspaper article, is far less substantial than the sworn
affidavits present in cases where evidentiary hearings have been ordered.” United States v. Bin
Laden, No. S7R 98 Cr. 1023 (KTD), 2005 WL 287404, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2005), aff’d sub
nom. In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008).
Finally, in Martha Stewart, the defendant brought a post-trial motion alleging a host of
deliberate omissions by a juror. 317 F. Supp. 2d at 438. Among the alleged deliberate omissions
was that the juror had been fired from his job at Citibank for abusing drugs or improper expense
accounting. Id. at 442. The district court denied a hearing with regard to this (and the other)
allegations, as it was based on (a) statements of an individual who “appears to be reporting
rumors,” and (b) an anonymous call to the defendant’s lawyer from an individual purporting to
work for Citibank. Id. The Second Circuit affirmed that decision, noting that the defendant’s
factual proffer as to this (and certain other) allegations was “insufficient.” Stewart, 433 F.3d at
305 & n.7. And although the Second Circuit stated in dicta that it might have held a hearing in the
deliberate omissions by a juror. 317 F. Supp. 2d at 438. Among the alleged deliberate omissions
was that the juror had been fired from his job at Citibank for abusing drugs or improper expense
accounting. Id. at 442. The district court denied a hearing with regard to this (and the other)
allegations, as it was based on (a) statements of an individual who “appears to be reporting
rumors,” and (b) an anonymous call to the defendant’s lawyer from an individual purporting to
work for Citibank. Id. The Second Circuit affirmed that decision, noting that the defendant’s
factual proffer as to this (and certain other) allegations was “insufficient.” Stewart, 433 F.3d at
305 & n.7. And although the Second Circuit stated in dicta that it might have held a hearing in the
39
DOJ-OGR-00009160
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document