DOJ-OGR-00009118.jpg
670 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
3
Organizations
4
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
670 KB
Summary
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing for a new trial based on juror bias. The attorneys contend that "Juror 50" exhibited both implied and inferred bias due to past experiences and media statements, rendering them unfit to serve despite claims of impartiality. The filing cites legal precedents, including phrases from Chief Justice Marshall, to argue that the juror should have been disqualified to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Burr |
Mentioned in a case citation: "Burr, 25 F. Cas. at 50."
|
|
| Torres |
Mentioned in a case citation: "Torres, 128 F.3d at 47."
|
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
The subject of the legal argument, whose media statements and feelings are claimed to establish bias.
|
| Chief Justice Marshall | Chief Justice |
His phrase "cautiously incapacitate[d]" is borrowed to argue for the disqualification of Juror 50.
|
| Abbe David Lowell | Attorney |
Signed and submitted the document. Contact information provided.
|
| Christopher D. Man | Attorney |
Listed as an attorney from Winston & Strawn LLP on the submission.
|
| Joel B. Rudin | Vice Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee, NACDL |
Listed as an attorney on the submission. Contact information provided.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Winston & Strawn LLP | company |
Law firm representing the party submitting the document, employing Abbe David Lowell and Christopher D. Man.
|
| NACDL | organization |
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Joel B. Rudin is the Vice Chair of its Amicus Curiae Committee.
|
| Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, P.C. | company |
Law firm of Joel B. Rudin.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-02-24
Document 614 was filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Address for the law firm Winston & Strawn LLP.
|
|
|
City where Winston & Strawn LLP is located.
|
|
|
Address for the Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, P.C.
|
|
|
City where the Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, P.C. are located.
|
Relationships (2)
Both are listed as attorneys from the same law firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, on the legal filing.
Both are listed as attorneys on the same legal filing, suggesting they are co-counsel or otherwise collaborating on the case.
Key Quotes (3)
"may declare that he feels no prejudice in the case; and yet the law cautiously incapacitates him from serving on the jury because it suspects prejudice, because in general persons in a similar situation would feel prejudice."Source
— Burr case precedent
(Quoted from the case Burr, 25 F. Cas. at 50 to argue that a juror's own declaration of impartiality is not sufficient.)
DOJ-OGR-00009118.jpg
Quote #1
"Bias may be inferred when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias."Source
— Torres case precedent
(Quoted from the case Torres, 128 F.3d at 47 to define when bias can be inferred.)
DOJ-OGR-00009118.jpg
Quote #2
"cautiously incapacitate[d]"Source
— Chief Justice Marshall
(A phrase borrowed to argue that Juror 50 should have been disqualified from serving on the jury.)
DOJ-OGR-00009118.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,931 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 614 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 12
notwithstanding these prejudices he is determined to listen to the evidence, and be governed by it;
but the law will not trust him.” Burr, 25 F. Cas. at 50. Such a juror “may declare that he feels no
prejudice in the case; and yet the law cautiously incapacitates him from serving on the jury because
it suspects prejudice, because in general persons in a similar situation would feel prejudice.” Id.
In addition to these situations in which bias must be implied, there are situations where
bias may be inferred. “Bias may be inferred when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of
partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror
for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias.” Torres, 128 F.3d at 47.
Here, Juror 50’s media statements establish both implied and inferred bias. The average
person who was sexually victimized and had Juror 50’s feelings about the crime and those who
complain about it could not be fair, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. To borrow
Chief Justice Marshall’s phrase, Juror 50 should have been “cautiously incapacitate[d]” from
serving on this jury.
but the law will not trust him.” Burr, 25 F. Cas. at 50. Such a juror “may declare that he feels no
prejudice in the case; and yet the law cautiously incapacitates him from serving on the jury because
it suspects prejudice, because in general persons in a similar situation would feel prejudice.” Id.
In addition to these situations in which bias must be implied, there are situations where
bias may be inferred. “Bias may be inferred when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of
partiality sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion to excuse the juror
for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory a presumption of bias.” Torres, 128 F.3d at 47.
Here, Juror 50’s media statements establish both implied and inferred bias. The average
person who was sexually victimized and had Juror 50’s feelings about the crime and those who
complain about it could not be fair, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. To borrow
Chief Justice Marshall’s phrase, Juror 50 should have been “cautiously incapacitate[d]” from
serving on this jury.
CONCLUSION
The Court should not allow any juror to thwart its screening process by giving inaccurate
answers and thereby create such a grave potential, realized in this case, for depriving the defendant
of her right to a fair trial. A new trial is required.
answers and thereby create such a grave potential, realized in this case, for depriving the defendant
of her right to a fair trial. A new trial is required.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Abbe David Lowell
Abbe David Lowell (SDNY # AL2981)
Christopher D. Man
Winston & Strawn LLP
1901 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20036152
ADLowell@winston.com
(202) 282-5875
Abbe David Lowell (SDNY # AL2981)
Christopher D. Man
Winston & Strawn LLP
1901 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20036152
ADLowell@winston.com
(202) 282-5875
Joel B. Rudin (SDNY # JR5645)
Vice Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee,
NACDL
Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, P.C.
152 West 57th Street, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10019
jbrudin@rudinlaw.com
(212) 752-7600
Vice Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee,
NACDL
Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, P.C.
152 West 57th Street, 8th Floor
New York, New York 10019
jbrudin@rudinlaw.com
(212) 752-7600
10
DOJ-OGR-00009118
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document