DOJ-OGR-00020954.jpg
626 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court order / opinion
File Size:
626 KB
Summary
This document is page 11 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It details the Court's assessment of 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire; the juror testified that this history did not affect his impartiality. The document also notes the denial of a defense request to stay the ruling pending the release of a documentary featuring said juror.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Testified regarding his personal history of sexual abuse and his ability to remain impartial.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judicial Authority |
Questioned Juror 50 and issued the order denying the stay.
|
| Defense counsel | Legal Defense |
Proposed questions during voir dire.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) |
Requested a stay on the ruling; implied subject of the trial.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Mentioned in context of potential juror bias.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US District Court |
Implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Southern District of New York).
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by footer DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-04-01
Filing of Document 653 and denial of Defendant's request to stay ruling.
Court
Relationships (1)
Juror 50 affirmed he did not harbor bias against the Defendant.
Key Quotes (3)
"He testified that his personal history of sexual abuse was not something he typically thought about and that it had not crossed his mind as he filled out the questionnaire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020954.jpg
Quote #1
"Ultimately, Juror 50 testified that his experience would not affect his ability to be a fair and impartial juror."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020954.jpg
Quote #2
"That request is denied. The Defendant provides no basis to conclude that the interview would affect the Court’s analysis or conclusion having held an evidentiary hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020954.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,193 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page128 of 221
A-328
A-328
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 11 of 40
was impossible he would be selected as a final juror. Id. at 11–13, 18. He testified that his
personal history of sexual abuse was not something he typically thought about and that it had not
crossed his mind as he filled out the questionnaire.
personal history of sexual abuse was not something he typically thought about and that it had not
crossed his mind as he filled out the questionnaire.
The Court asked follow-up questions consistent with those asked of prospective jurors
during voir dire who responded affirmatively to Questions 25, 48, and 49 on their questionnaires,
including those questions proposed by Defense counsel at that stage during trial. Further, the
Court asked Juror 50 about several potential inconsistencies in his testimony. The Court did not
permit questions that were inconsistent with the process as it played out in voir dire or otherwise
irrelevant or redundant. Ultimately, Juror 50 testified that his experience would not affect his
ability to be a fair and impartial juror. He affirmed that he did not harbor any bias against the
Defendant nor in favor of the Government. He asserted that he would be able to assess the
credibility of witnesses alleging sexual abuse. And he affirmed that the subject matter of the
case would not upset him in such a way that would distract him from his duty as a juror, nor
would he be thinking about his experience in a way that would prevent him from being fair or
impartial.
during voir dire who responded affirmatively to Questions 25, 48, and 49 on their questionnaires,
including those questions proposed by Defense counsel at that stage during trial. Further, the
Court asked Juror 50 about several potential inconsistencies in his testimony. The Court did not
permit questions that were inconsistent with the process as it played out in voir dire or otherwise
irrelevant or redundant. Ultimately, Juror 50 testified that his experience would not affect his
ability to be a fair and impartial juror. He affirmed that he did not harbor any bias against the
Defendant nor in favor of the Government. He asserted that he would be able to assess the
credibility of witnesses alleging sexual abuse. And he affirmed that the subject matter of the
case would not upset him in such a way that would distract him from his duty as a juror, nor
would he be thinking about his experience in a way that would prevent him from being fair or
impartial.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental
briefing on Juror 50’s testimony, which the parties simultaneously submitted on March 15, 2022.
Dkt. Nos. 648, 649.²
briefing on Juror 50’s testimony, which the parties simultaneously submitted on March 15, 2022.
Dkt. Nos. 648, 649.²
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants “the right to a speedy and public
trial[] by an impartial jury.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. An impartial jury is one “capable and
trial[] by an impartial jury.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. An impartial jury is one “capable and
² On April 1, 2022, the Defendant requested the Court stay its ruling pending the release of a documentary in which
Juror 50 is expected to appear. Dkt. No. 651. That request is denied. The Defendant provides no basis to conclude
that the interview would affect the Court’s analysis or conclusion having held an evidentiary hearing.
Juror 50 is expected to appear. Dkt. No. 651. That request is denied. The Defendant provides no basis to conclude
that the interview would affect the Court’s analysis or conclusion having held an evidentiary hearing.
11
DOJ-OGR-00020954
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document