DOJ-OGR-00005335.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 367 Filed 10/22/21 Page 13 of 35

Juror ID: _________

Have you ever filed a criminal complaint?
☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, please explain: ____________________________________

Have you ever contacted any prosecutor office: State District Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, State Attorney General?
☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, please explain the reason? ____________________________________

Have you ever reported someone for wrongdoing to your employer or a government agency?
☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, please explain: ____________________________________

Other than for a minor traffic citation, have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a crime?
☐ Yes ☐ No If Yes, please explain: ____________________________________

MEDIA ISSUES

How much do you rely on the following sources for your news?

A lot
Somewhat
Not much
Not at all
Newspapers:
☐
☐
☐
☐
Social Media:
☐
☐
☐
☐
Television:
☐
☐
☐
☐
Radio:
☐
☐
☐
☐
Internet:
☐
☐
☐
☐
Conversations:
☐
☐
☐
☐
Other:
☐
☐
☐
☐

How often do you use or access those sources: ☐ Daily ☐ Occasionally ☐ Rarely

Commented [A18]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the “Media Issues” section proposed by the defendant on the grounds that it is not streamlined in accordance with the Court’s Order. The Government submits that its proposed questions ask the jurors what is necessary on the subject but is not as unduly burdensome as the defendant’s proposal. Many of the questions are vague, confusing, and argumentative.

Commented [A19R18]: DEFENDANT RESPONSE: A critical purpose of individual voir dire in a high-profile case such as this is to ascertain what content the jurors have read and what they think they know about the case. The First Circuit’s well-reasoned opinion in Tsarnaev, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court explains why. It is insufficient simply to ask the jurors if they think they can be fair even after seeing media about the case. See, e.g., United States v. Tsarnaev, 968 F.3d 24, (1st Cir. 2020) (failure to ask each juror to identify what content they had already read about the case and to identify what they already thought they knew about the case grounds for reversal of death sentence), cert. granted, 141 S.Ct. 1683 (Mar. 22, 2021), oral argument scheduled (Oct. 13, 2021); Patriarca v. United States, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1st Cir. 1968) (judge must elicit “the kind and degree” of each prospective juror’s exposure to the case or the parties” if asked by counsel); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221-22 (1982) (O’Connor, concurring) (prospective juror “may have an interest in concealing [their] own bias” or “may be unaware of it”).

Further, as in Tsarnaev decision, much of the information shared on the media about Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein is either inaccurate or inadmissible, or pertains to persons and charges not before this jury. 968 F.3d at 58 (“while the media (social, cable, internet, etc.) gave largely factual accounts, some of the coverage included inaccurate or inadmissible information — like the details of his un-Mirandized hospital interview and the opinions of public officials that he should die”) (citation omitted). It also included a number of individuals’ personal opinions regarding Ms. Maxwell’s guilt.

-13-

DOJ-OGR-00005335