DOJ-OGR-00021864.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate brief)
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
This document is page 17 (labeled page 40 of 56 in the header) of a legal brief, likely from the government (DOJ), arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It specifically addresses the District Court's denial of a new trial regarding 'Juror 50', who Maxwell alleges failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text cites legal precedents supporting the court's discretion to deny probing jurors post-verdict.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Contending she was deprived of a fair trial due to Juror 50's responses.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Accused of failing to accurately respond to questionnaire regarding sexual abuse history.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals (2d Cir.) |
Referenced in legal citations (e.g., Rivas v. Brattesani, United States v. Ferguson).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Document source indicated by footer 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Unknown (Prior to filing)
Relationships (1)
Maxwell challenges the verdict based on Juror 50's questionnaire responses.
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021864.jpg
Quote #1
"We have been extremely reluctant to 'haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021864.jpg
Quote #2
"courts... should do so 'sparingly' and only in 'the most extraordinary circumstances.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021864.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,740 characters)
Case 22-1486, Document 197-1, 10/17/2024, 3665587, Page 40 of 56
3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial
Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial.
We review a District Court's denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.27 We have been extremely reluctant to "haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences." 28 While courts can "vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires," Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so "sparingly" and only in "the most extraordinary circumstances." 29 A district court "has
27 See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). "[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance." United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the term of art "abuse of discretion" includes errors of law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or "a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
28 United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983).
29 Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134.
17
DOJ-OGR-00021864
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document