DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
605 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (page 39 of 40)
File Size:
605 KB
Summary
This document is page 39 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rejects the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on Juror 50's conduct, concluding that Juror 50 did not commit perjury, was not biased, and testified credibly at a post-trial hearing regarding his failure to disclose prior sexual abuse during the questionnaire phase. The judge rules that the 'McDonough inquiry' standard for a new trial was not met.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a post-trial hearing regarding potential bias and failure to disclose sexual abuse history.
|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by 'Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.'); arguing for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
|
| AJN | Judge |
Initials in case number '1:20-cr-00330-AJN' (Judge Alison J. Nathan).
|
Key Quotes (5)
"the Court does not conclude that Juror 50 committed perjury and lied in an effort to be on the jury."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror 50’s sworn testimony did not reveal actual partiality."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
Quote #2
"Prong two of the demanding McDonough inquiry is not satisfied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
Quote #3
"He was neither a victim nor otherwise involved in the actual crimes."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
Quote #4
"That Juror 50 was distracted during the questionnaire does not reveal that he was biased"Source
DOJ-OGR-00020982.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,049 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page156 of 221
A-356
A-356
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 39 of 40
Even if confined to the questionnaire session, the Defendant argues that Juror 50’s
“willingness to disregard the Court’s instructions” during the questionnaire “shows an inability
to serve as an unbiased juror.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 11. She relies on Dyer v. Calderon,
151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), as her sole support. But Dyer stands for the distinct
proposition that a juror who deliberately lies, and thus commits perjury, cannot be trusted to
“stand in judgment of other people’s veracity.” Id. at 983. It does not support that an uncareful
and inattentive prospective juror who mistakenly provides an inaccurate response during jury
selection is biased. As explained above, the Court does not conclude that Juror 50 committed
perjury and lied in an effort to be on the jury. Accordingly, the Court rejects granting the
Defendant’s motion on this basis.
“willingness to disregard the Court’s instructions” during the questionnaire “shows an inability
to serve as an unbiased juror.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 11. She relies on Dyer v. Calderon,
151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), as her sole support. But Dyer stands for the distinct
proposition that a juror who deliberately lies, and thus commits perjury, cannot be trusted to
“stand in judgment of other people’s veracity.” Id. at 983. It does not support that an uncareful
and inattentive prospective juror who mistakenly provides an inaccurate response during jury
selection is biased. As explained above, the Court does not conclude that Juror 50 committed
perjury and lied in an effort to be on the jury. Accordingly, the Court rejects granting the
Defendant’s motion on this basis.
* * *
In sum, the Court concludes that the evidence in the record does not support finding that
Juror 50 was biased. Juror 50’s sworn testimony did not reveal actual partiality. And Juror 50
was not impliedly or inferably biased. He was neither a victim nor otherwise involved in the
actual crimes. Nor does he have any sort of relationship with any of the parties or case
participants. And as consistent with other jurors who answered “yes (self)” to Question 48, the
Court would not have granted a for-cause challenge on the basis of Juror 50’s personal history of
sexual abuse. That Juror 50 was distracted during the questionnaire does not reveal that he was
biased or failed to follow the Court’s instructions during voir dire and the trial. Prong two of the
demanding McDonough inquiry is not satisfied.
Juror 50 was biased. Juror 50’s sworn testimony did not reveal actual partiality. And Juror 50
was not impliedly or inferably biased. He was neither a victim nor otherwise involved in the
actual crimes. Nor does he have any sort of relationship with any of the parties or case
participants. And as consistent with other jurors who answered “yes (self)” to Question 48, the
Court would not have granted a for-cause challenge on the basis of Juror 50’s personal history of
sexual abuse. That Juror 50 was distracted during the questionnaire does not reveal that he was
biased or failed to follow the Court’s instructions during voir dire and the trial. Prong two of the
demanding McDonough inquiry is not satisfied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Juror 50 testified credibly and
truthfully at the post-trial hearing. His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Juror 50 testified credibly and
truthfully at the post-trial hearing. His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury
39
DOJ-OGR-00020982
DOJ-OGR-00020982
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document