DOJ-OGR-00008968.jpg
702 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (legal memorandum/motion)
File Size:
702 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 604) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 17, 2022. The text presents a legal argument regarding juror misconduct, asserting that a juror hid a central issue during selection that they later raised during deliberations. The filing argues that the defense should not be required to prove the juror's 'willfulness' to obtain relief, citing Supreme Court precedents (Sheppard v. Maxwell, Irvin v. Dowd) regarding fair trials for unpopular defendants facing adverse publicity.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Juror | Juror in question |
Accused of making a misstatement on a central issue, potentially hiding information raised during deliberations.
|
| Defendant | Defendant (Implied Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number) |
Subject of the trial; document argues for their right to a fair trial despite being an 'unpopular defendant'.
|
| Sheppard | Legal Precedent |
Cited in Sheppard v. Maxwell regarding pre-trial publicity.
|
| Maxwell | Legal Precedent (Sam Sheppard case warden) |
Cited in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966).
|
| Irvin | Legal Precedent |
Cited in Irvin v. Dowd regarding adverse publicity.
|
| Dowd | Legal Precedent |
Cited in Irvin v. Dowd (1961).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of the document release (DOJ-OGR Bates stamp).
|
|
| The Court |
The judicial body being addressed in the memorandum (SDNY implied by case number).
|
Key Quotes (3)
"Requiring proof of willfulness would make the post-trial inquiry too subjective and thereby dilute the obligation to be accurate in the first place."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008968.jpg
Quote #1
"High-profile criminal cases, including ones that involve public outcry about unpopular defendants accused of heinous crimes, have been the stage for some of the most important decisions safeguarding the constitutional right to a fair trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008968.jpg
Quote #2
"the misstatement concerned an issue so central that it is likely the juror, had he answered accurately, would have been disqualified for cause"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008968.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,073 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 604 Filed 02/17/22 Page 3 of 6
here, the misstatement concerned an issue so central that it is likely the juror, had he answered
accurately, would have been disqualified for cause or disqualified through a peremptory
challenge. And the impact to a fair trial from the seating of such a juror is even more threatened
when the issue hidden by a potential juror is, as some reports have indicated, raised by that person
during deliberations. Requiring proof of willfulness would make the post-trial inquiry too
subjective and thereby dilute the obligation to be accurate in the first place. Such a rule could tip
the balance in decisions by favoring findings that would avoid the expense and inconvenience of
having to retry the case. In our memorandum, we would address analogous areas of the law
which we believe will lead this Court to conclude that a finding of willfulness should not be
required.
accurately, would have been disqualified for cause or disqualified through a peremptory
challenge. And the impact to a fair trial from the seating of such a juror is even more threatened
when the issue hidden by a potential juror is, as some reports have indicated, raised by that person
during deliberations. Requiring proof of willfulness would make the post-trial inquiry too
subjective and thereby dilute the obligation to be accurate in the first place. Such a rule could tip
the balance in decisions by favoring findings that would avoid the expense and inconvenience of
having to retry the case. In our memorandum, we would address analogous areas of the law
which we believe will lead this Court to conclude that a finding of willfulness should not be
required.
7. High-profile criminal cases, including ones that involve public outcry about
unpopular defendants accused of heinous crimes, have been the stage for some of the most
important decisions safeguarding the constitutional right to a fair trial. See, e.g., Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (finding in a second-degree murder case for the alleged
bludgeoning death of a pregnant wife that because extensive pre-trial publicity had emphasized
evidence and opinions that tended to incriminate the defendant and that ongoing publicity during
the trial had revealed matters discussed outside the presence of the jury, the defendant was
entitled to a new trial as a result of the “inherently prejudicial publicity which saturated the
community....”); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 728 (1961) (finding where there was continued
adverse publicity fostering a strong prejudice against defendant who had allegedly confessed to
six murders in a small area, which caused two-thirds of the jury to admit before hearing any
testimony to possessing a belief in his guilt, that defendant must be retried). These are the cases
unpopular defendants accused of heinous crimes, have been the stage for some of the most
important decisions safeguarding the constitutional right to a fair trial. See, e.g., Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966) (finding in a second-degree murder case for the alleged
bludgeoning death of a pregnant wife that because extensive pre-trial publicity had emphasized
evidence and opinions that tended to incriminate the defendant and that ongoing publicity during
the trial had revealed matters discussed outside the presence of the jury, the defendant was
entitled to a new trial as a result of the “inherently prejudicial publicity which saturated the
community....”); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 728 (1961) (finding where there was continued
adverse publicity fostering a strong prejudice against defendant who had allegedly confessed to
six murders in a small area, which caused two-thirds of the jury to admit before hearing any
testimony to possessing a belief in his guilt, that defendant must be retried). These are the cases
3
DOJ-OGR-00008968
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document