DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal ruling
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This document is Page 19 of a court ruling filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, labeling it a 'fishing expedition,' and rules that Juror 50 will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire. The Court also orders that the questionnaire be docketed (unsealed), citing the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a legal inquiry regarding potential misconduct; requested release of his jury questionnaire.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number and 'Maxwell Br.'); opposed releasing the questionnaire to counsel.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judicial Body |
Judge Alison J. Nathan (indicated by AJN in case number); issuing the ruling.
|
| The Government | Prosecution |
Argued against limiting Juror 50's access and opposed sealing the questionnaire.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals mentioned in legal citation (Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.).
|
|
| W.D.N.Y. |
Western District of New York, mentioned in legal citation.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in the footer Bates stamp.
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant argues that advance disclosure will color Juror 50's testimony.
Government argues there is no legitimate interest in limiting Juror 50's access.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a showing that any pre-hearing discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court will release Juror 50's questionnaire"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
Quote #2
"The Defendant opposes both the unsealing and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that 'advance disclosure . . . will undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible posture.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court concludes that the presumption of access dictates that the questionnaire must be docketed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,146 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page113 of 217
SA-367
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 21
SA-367
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 19 of 21
The Court concludes that the Defendant has not made a showing that any pre-hearing
discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied.
discovery is appropriate, and the request to engage in an intrusive fishing expedition is denied.
C. The Court will release Juror 50’s questionnaire
This Court previously reserved ruling on Juror 50’s request that the Court release his jury
questionnaire to counsel, but that the document otherwise remain under seal to protect his
supposed privacy interest. See Dkt. No. 596 at 5 n.1. The Defendant opposes both the unsealing
and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that “advance disclosure . . . will
undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible
posture.” Maxwell Br. at 53. The Government argues that there is no legitimate interest in
limiting Juror 50’s access and opposes maintaining the questionnaire under seal. Gov. Br. at 42;
see also Dkt. No. 594.
questionnaire to counsel, but that the document otherwise remain under seal to protect his
supposed privacy interest. See Dkt. No. 596 at 5 n.1. The Defendant opposes both the unsealing
and releasing the questionnaire to counsel, arguing that “advance disclosure . . . will
undoubt[edly] color Juror No. 50’s testimony and allow him to place himself in the best possible
posture.” Maxwell Br. at 53. The Government argues that there is no legitimate interest in
limiting Juror 50’s access and opposes maintaining the questionnaire under seal. Gov. Br. at 42;
see also Dkt. No. 594.
The Court will provide Juror 50 a copy of his completed questionnaire. Unlike the
parties’ proposed questions, Juror 50’s access to his completed questionnaire—the answers to
which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The Defendant’s concern that
advance disclosure may somehow taint Juror 50’s testimony is unfounded. See United States v.
McCoy et al., No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329, at 15 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) (providing
the jury questionnaire to juror’s counsel in advance of the hearing). Rather, delaying disclosure
until the hearing would needlessly delay the fact-finding process.
parties’ proposed questions, Juror 50’s access to his completed questionnaire—the answers to
which he wrote—will not undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The Defendant’s concern that
advance disclosure may somehow taint Juror 50’s testimony is unfounded. See United States v.
McCoy et al., No. 14-CR-6181 (EAW), Dkt. No. 329, at 15 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) (providing
the jury questionnaire to juror’s counsel in advance of the hearing). Rather, delaying disclosure
until the hearing would needlessly delay the fact-finding process.
Moreover, the Court concludes that the presumption of access dictates that the
questionnaire must be docketed. Juror 50’s and the Defendant’s request that the questionnaire
remain sealed is governed by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). See Dkt. No. 596 at 2 (outlining the
test). First, the jury questionnaire easily qualifies as a judicial document. It is a key exhibit to
questionnaire must be docketed. Juror 50’s and the Defendant’s request that the questionnaire
remain sealed is governed by the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). See Dkt. No. 596 at 2 (outlining the
test). First, the jury questionnaire easily qualifies as a judicial document. It is a key exhibit to
19
DOJ-OGR-00021543
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document