DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg
696 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal filing
File Size:
696 KB
Summary
This page is from a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the legal standards for a post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing precedents like 'Ventura' and 'Guzman Loera.' The Court rules that it will conduct a hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false answers to Question 48 on the jury questionnaire, which asked about personal or family history of sexual harassment or abuse.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referenced in citation 'Maxwell Reply Br. at 8'
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding potential misconduct and false answers on a questionnaire.
|
| Guzman Loera | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in legal precedent (United States v. Guzman Loera).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
The court issuing the order and conducting the hearing.
|
|
| The Government |
Acknowledges that Juror 50's answer satisfies the standard for a hearing.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited as '2d Cir.' in legal precedent.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Source of the document release (Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-25
Filing of Document 620 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Federal Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Eastern District of New York, cited in legal precedent.
|
Relationships (1)
The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Juror 50 provided false answers...
Key Quotes (3)
"The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Juror 50 provided false answers on the questionnaire, the explanation for those answers, and how Juror 50 would have responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg
Quote #1
"The Government acknowledges that Juror 50’s answer to Question 48 satisfies the demanding standard for an evidentiary hearing under McDonough."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg
Quote #2
"Question 48 asked jurors: Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,032 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 21
deliberations.” Maxwell Reply Br. at 8. This argument is wrong, as “the ultimate purpose of the
[requested] post-trial evidentiary hearing is to set aside a jury verdict.” Ventura, 2014 WL
259655, at *3. And “there is no discernible reason to apply a different general standard to new
trial motions based on juror misconduct than to those premised on any other reason.” United
States v. Guzman Loera, No. 09-CR-0466 (BMC), 2019 WL 2869081, at *5 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. July
3, 2019), aff’d, 24 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2022). “[E]ven though there are additional
considerations . . . when ruling on an evidentiary hearing and new trial motion premised upon
allegations of juror misconduct, these are the overarching legal standards applicable to all Rule
33 motions, including when juror misconduct is at issue.” Id.
[requested] post-trial evidentiary hearing is to set aside a jury verdict.” Ventura, 2014 WL
259655, at *3. And “there is no discernible reason to apply a different general standard to new
trial motions based on juror misconduct than to those premised on any other reason.” United
States v. Guzman Loera, No. 09-CR-0466 (BMC), 2019 WL 2869081, at *5 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. July
3, 2019), aff’d, 24 F.4th 144 (2d Cir. 2022). “[E]ven though there are additional
considerations . . . when ruling on an evidentiary hearing and new trial motion premised upon
allegations of juror misconduct, these are the overarching legal standards applicable to all Rule
33 motions, including when juror misconduct is at issue.” Id.
If a hearing is held, “its scope should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary to
determine the facts with precision.” Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. “Therefore, in the course of a
post-verdict inquiry . . . , when and if it becomes apparent that the above-described reasonable
grounds to suspect prejudicial jury impropriety do not exist, the inquiry should end.” Moon, 718
F.2d at 1234. The Court has discretion to structure the hearing and to determine what testimony
is needed. Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.
determine the facts with precision.” Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544. “Therefore, in the course of a
post-verdict inquiry . . . , when and if it becomes apparent that the above-described reasonable
grounds to suspect prejudicial jury impropriety do not exist, the inquiry should end.” Moon, 718
F.2d at 1234. The Court has discretion to structure the hearing and to determine what testimony
is needed. Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544.
B. The scope of the hearing
The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether Juror 50 provided false
answers on the questionnaire, the explanation for those answers, and how Juror 50 would have
responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided. The Government
acknowledges that Juror 50’s answer to Question 48 satisfies the demanding standard for an
evidentiary hearing under McDonough. Gov. Br. at 33. The Court agrees. Question 48 asked
jurors:
answers on the questionnaire, the explanation for those answers, and how Juror 50 would have
responded to follow-up questions if accurate answers had been provided. The Government
acknowledges that Juror 50’s answer to Question 48 satisfies the demanding standard for an
evidentiary hearing under McDonough. Gov. Br. at 33. The Court agrees. Question 48 asked
jurors:
Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual
harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted
harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted
7
DOJ-OGR-00009548
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document