DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's (Maxwell's) claim that one of the jurors, Juror 50, was biased. The defendant cites other legal cases (Afshar, Burton) to support the claim, but the court distinguishes the facts and finds Juror 50 was not biased, noting his credible testimony about his past abuse. The court also dismisses the argument that Juror 50's post-trial interviews and social media activity are evidence of bias.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant whose legal briefs (Maxwell Br., Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.) are cited throughout the document in argumen...
|
| Sampson | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation (citing Sampson, 724 F.3d at 168) related to affirming a district court's order.
|
| Afshar | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation State v. Afshar, a state court case relied upon by the Defendant.
|
| Burton | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation Burton v. Johnson, where the Tenth Circuit found a juror to be impliedly biased.
|
| Johnson | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation Burton v. Johnson.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror in the defendant's trial who is the subject of bias allegations due to his past experience with abuse and his...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Tenth Circuit | Judiciary |
Cited as the court that concluded a juror was impliedly biased in the case of Burton v. Johnson.
|
| The Court | Judiciary |
The court authoring this document, which is ruling on the Defendant's arguments and concluding that Juror 50 is not b...
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Abbreviation for New Hampshire, the jurisdiction of the cited case State v. Afshar.
|
Key Quotes (6)
"little in the way of logical explanation for how he could have differentiated between the two cases."Source
— Court in State v. Afshar
(Describing a juror in a cited case who had previously reported an inability to be impartial in a similar matter.)
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
Quote #1
"happened so long ago"Source
— Juror 50
(Testifying about his past abuse to demonstrate it no longer affects him.)
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
Quote #2
"it’s not part of who [he is]."Source
— Juror 50
(Testifying about his past abuse to demonstrate it no longer affects him.)
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
Quote #3
"strong evidence"Source
— The Defendant
(Characterizing Juror 50's post-trial conduct as proof of his bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
Quote #4
"not looking to avoid notice,"Source
— The Defendant
(Arguing that Juror 50's motive for giving interviews was to seek attention, thus showing bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
Quote #5
"soak up his 15 minutes of fame."Source
— The Defendant
(Arguing that Juror 50's motive for giving interviews was to seek attention, thus showing bias.)
DOJ-OGR-00020977.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,220 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page151 of 221
A-351
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 34 of 40
A-351
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 34 of 40
Circuit to affirm the district court’s order for a new penalty-phase hearing. Maxwell Br. at 33 (citing Sampson, 724 F.3d at 168).
The Defendant next relies on a state court case, State v. Afshar, 196 A.3d 93 (N.H. 2018), in which a court granted a new trial in a child sexual assault case when a juror failed to disclose that a babysitter sexually assaulted him when he was five or six years old. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 5; see also Maxwell Br. at 34. But that juror had previously reported an inability to be impartial in another case involving sexual assault of a minor, and the court concluded that there was “little in the way of logical explanation for how he could have differentiated between the two cases.” 196 A.3d at 98. Such is not the case here.
Finally, in Burton v. Johnson, the Tenth Circuit concluded that a juror was impliedly biased when she suffered an abusive relationship with her husband that was highly similar to that of the defendant. 948 F.2d 1150, 1158–59 (10th Cir. 1991). However, not only had that juror deliberately lied during voir dire about the experience, but she was also living in that abusive situation during voir dire, the trial itself, and her post-verdict testimony to the court. Id.
Conversely, Juror 50 credibly testified that his abuse “happened so long ago” that it is not something that he “think[s] about,” “it’s not part of who [he is].” Hearing Tr. at 47. And again, the Court has not found that Juror 50 deliberately lied about his personal history.
The Defendant’s remaining arguments also fail to alter the Court’s conclusion that Juror 50 is not biased. The Defendant contends that Juror 50’s post-trial conduct—in particular, his posts on social media and his decision to give interviews using his picture and first name—is “strong evidence” of his bias because he was “not looking to avoid notice,” but rather to “soak up his 15 minutes of fame.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 10–11. The Court disagrees that this conduct reveals bias. Whether wise or foolish, the fact that a juror may give an interview
The Defendant next relies on a state court case, State v. Afshar, 196 A.3d 93 (N.H. 2018), in which a court granted a new trial in a child sexual assault case when a juror failed to disclose that a babysitter sexually assaulted him when he was five or six years old. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 5; see also Maxwell Br. at 34. But that juror had previously reported an inability to be impartial in another case involving sexual assault of a minor, and the court concluded that there was “little in the way of logical explanation for how he could have differentiated between the two cases.” 196 A.3d at 98. Such is not the case here.
Finally, in Burton v. Johnson, the Tenth Circuit concluded that a juror was impliedly biased when she suffered an abusive relationship with her husband that was highly similar to that of the defendant. 948 F.2d 1150, 1158–59 (10th Cir. 1991). However, not only had that juror deliberately lied during voir dire about the experience, but she was also living in that abusive situation during voir dire, the trial itself, and her post-verdict testimony to the court. Id.
Conversely, Juror 50 credibly testified that his abuse “happened so long ago” that it is not something that he “think[s] about,” “it’s not part of who [he is].” Hearing Tr. at 47. And again, the Court has not found that Juror 50 deliberately lied about his personal history.
The Defendant’s remaining arguments also fail to alter the Court’s conclusion that Juror 50 is not biased. The Defendant contends that Juror 50’s post-trial conduct—in particular, his posts on social media and his decision to give interviews using his picture and first name—is “strong evidence” of his bias because he was “not looking to avoid notice,” but rather to “soak up his 15 minutes of fame.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 10–11. The Court disagrees that this conduct reveals bias. Whether wise or foolish, the fact that a juror may give an interview
34
DOJ-OGR-00020977
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document