DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
711 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal ruling (page 19 of 21)
File Size:
711 KB
Summary
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, characterizing it as a 'fishing expedition.' Additionally, the Court rules that 'Juror 50' will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire and that the document must be unsealed (docketed), rejecting the Defendant's argument that this would taint the juror's testimony.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a legal inquiry regarding potential misconduct; requested release of his jury questionnaire.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (inferred from Case No. and 'Maxwell Br.'); opposing the release and unsealing of the questionnaire.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Evaluating requests regarding discovery and the sealing of documents.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; argues against limiting Juror 50's access and opposes sealing the questionnaire.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals; cited for legal precedent (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.).
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Western District of New York (cited in case law United States v. McCoy).
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant argues disclosure will allow Juror 50 to 'place himself in the best possible posture' during testimony.
Government argues there is no legitimate interest in limiting Juror 50's access to his own questionnaire.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a showing that any pre-hearing discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
Quote #1
"The Defendant opposes both the unsealing and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that 'advance disclosure . . . will undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
Quote #2
"Unlike the parties’ proposed questions, Juror 50’s access to his completed questionnaire—the answers to which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
Quote #3
"Moreover, the Court concludes that the presumption of access dictates that the questionnaire must be docketed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,082 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 21
The Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a showing that any pre-hearing
discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied.
discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied.
C. The Court will release Juror 50’s questionnaire
This Court previously reserved ruling on Juror 50’s request that the Court release his jury
questionnaire to counsel, but that the document otherwise remain under seal to protect his
supposed privacy interest. See Dkt. No. 596 at 5 n.1. The Defendant opposes both the unsealing
and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that “advance disclosure . . . will
undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible
posture.” Maxwell Br. at 53. The Government argues that there is no legitimate interest in
limiting Juror 50’s access and opposes maintaining the questionnaire under seal. Gov. Br. at 42;
see also Dkt. No. 594.
questionnaire to counsel, but that the document otherwise remain under seal to protect his
supposed privacy interest. See Dkt. No. 596 at 5 n.1. The Defendant opposes both the unsealing
and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that “advance disclosure . . . will
undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible
posture.” Maxwell Br. at 53. The Government argues that there is no legitimate interest in
limiting Juror 50’s access and opposes maintaining the questionnaire under seal. Gov. Br. at 42;
see also Dkt. No. 594.
The Court will provide Juror 50 a copy of his completed questionnaire. Unlike the
parties’ proposed questions, Juror 50’s access to his completed questionnaire—the answers to
which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The Defendant’s concern that
advance disclosure may somehow taint Juror 50’s testimony is unfounded. See United States v.
McCoy et al., No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329, at 15 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) (providing
the jury questionnaire to juror’s counsel in advance of the hearing). Rather, delaying disclosure
until the hearing would needlessly delay the fact-finding process.
parties’ proposed questions, Juror 50’s access to his completed questionnaire—the answers to
which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The Defendant’s concern that
advance disclosure may somehow taint Juror 50’s testimony is unfounded. See United States v.
McCoy et al., No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329, at 15 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) (providing
the jury questionnaire to juror’s counsel in advance of the hearing). Rather, delaying disclosure
until the hearing would needlessly delay the fact-finding process.
Moreover, the Court concludes that the presumption of access dictates that the
questionnaire must be docketed. Juror 50’s and the Defendant’s request that the questionnaire
remain sealed is governed by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). See Dkt. No. 596 at 2 (outlining the
test). First, the jury questionnaire easily qualifies as a judicial document. It is a key exhibit to
questionnaire must be docketed. Juror 50’s and the Defendant’s request that the questionnaire
remain sealed is governed by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). See Dkt. No. 596 at 2 (outlining the
test). First, the jury questionnaire easily qualifies as a judicial document. It is a key exhibit to
19
DOJ-OGR-00009560
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document