DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
516 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
516 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that the questioning of 'Juror No. 50' should be broad and encompass any topic related to actual bias, citing legal precedents like Greer and United States v. James. It asserts that due to the juror's alleged pattern of giving false answers, Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept the juror's denial of acting deliberately and should be allowed to investigate the totality of the circumstances.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the party who should be allowed to question Juror No. 50 for potential bias.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
The subject of a proposed questioning regarding potential bias, intent, and a pattern of giving false answers to the ...
|
| James | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. James'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Judicial body |
The entity to which Juror No. 50 allegedly gave false answers and the body that the government is making suggestions to.
|
Timeline (1 events)
A legal argument is being made for the questioning of Juror No. 50 to determine actual bias.
Relationships (2)
The document presents Ms. Maxwell's legal argument against a proposal made by the government regarding the scope of questioning a juror.
Ms. Maxwell is seeking to question Juror No. 50 about potential bias and false answers given to the Court.
Key Quotes (2)
"is among the ‘factors to be considered’ in the ultimate determination of bias. . . ."Source
— Greer, 285 F.3d at 173
(Cited as legal precedent to argue that a juror's deliberate action is a factor in determining bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
Quote #1
"[W]hen attempting to show bias or interest, as opposed to bad reputation, the examiner is not bound to accept the witness’ answer, but is free to call additional witnesses for impeachment."Source
— United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 46 (2d Cir. 1979)
(Cited as legal precedent to support the argument that Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept Juror No. 50's assertions and can seek further evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,080 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 26 of 32
2. The questioning should encompass any topic on which actual bias may be based.
Moreover, the questioning should be significantly broader than proposed by the government. Although Ms. Maxwell need not prove Juror No. 50’s intent, whether he acted deliberately is “is among the ‘factors to be considered’ in the ultimate determination of bias. . . .” Greer, 285 F.3d at 173. An analysis of Juror No. 50’s intent requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. And if only because Juror No. 50 has a pattern and practice of giving false answers to the Court, Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept any post-hoc assertion by him that he did not act deliberately. Cf. United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 46 (2d Cir. 1979) (“[W]hen attempting to show bias or interest, as opposed to bad reputation, the examiner is not bound to accept the witness’ answer, but is free to call additional witnesses for impeachment.”).
The government disingenuously suggests that the Court [REDACTED]
21
DOJ-OGR-00009216
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document