DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
745 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal court filing (order/opinion)
File Size:
745 KB
Summary
This document is page 36 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text discusses the Court's rejection of the Defendant's arguments regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically concerning the juror's history of sexual abuse and 'healing process.' The Court cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent inquiry into the juror's mental processes during deliberations and concludes that the juror's past trauma did not interfere with his ability to be fair and impartial.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a post-trial hearing regarding potential bias and non-disclosure of sexual abuse history.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number and 'Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.'), arguing for a new trial based on juror mis...
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Adjudicating the motion regarding Juror 50; rejected Defendant's proposed follow-up questions.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Document source/processing (DOJ-OGR stamp).
|
|
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Cited in legal precedent (2d Cir.).
|
|
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
Cited in legal precedent (9th Cir.).
|
|
| District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
Cited in legal precedent (E.D.N.Y.).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on Case 1:20-cr-00330.
|
Relationships (1)
Defendant argues Juror 50's trauma affected him; Court rules against Defendant.
Key Quotes (4)
"Juror 50 credibly testified that his sexual abuse is not usually on his mind, that the subject matter would not upset him in a way that would distract him from his duty"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
Quote #1
"Rule 606(b) bars the Court from relying on these statements because they pertain to Juror 50’s “mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
Quote #2
"reveal just how deeply the trauma affected him and continues to affect him."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
Quote #3
"we cannot and should not excommunicate them from jury deliberations."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010359.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,224 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 36 of 40
personal memories, some from decades earlier and some involving sensitive or tragic events. So
long as jurors can be fair and impartial and decide the case based solely on the evidence and the
law as instructed, then it is those “very human elements that constitute one of the strengths of our
jury system, and we cannot and should not excommunicate them from jury deliberations.” U.S.
ex rel. Owen, 435 F.2d at 818. In any event, Rule 606(b) bars the Court from relying on these
statements because they pertain to Juror 50’s “mental processes concerning the verdict or
indictment.” Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1). “[P]arsing how jurors considered the evidence or their
mental states while hearing testimony is exactly what Tanner and the plain text of Rule 606(b)
seek to prevent.” United States v. Leung, 796 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) (cited favorably
by United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2018)); see also United States v. Abcasis,
811 F. Supp. 828, 834 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (Rule 606 does not permit inquiry into jurors’
discussions or “reactions to the evidence as it developed” (cleaned up)).
long as jurors can be fair and impartial and decide the case based solely on the evidence and the
law as instructed, then it is those “very human elements that constitute one of the strengths of our
jury system, and we cannot and should not excommunicate them from jury deliberations.” U.S.
ex rel. Owen, 435 F.2d at 818. In any event, Rule 606(b) bars the Court from relying on these
statements because they pertain to Juror 50’s “mental processes concerning the verdict or
indictment.” Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1). “[P]arsing how jurors considered the evidence or their
mental states while hearing testimony is exactly what Tanner and the plain text of Rule 606(b)
seek to prevent.” United States v. Leung, 796 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2015) (cited favorably
by United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2018)); see also United States v. Abcasis,
811 F. Supp. 828, 834 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) (Rule 606 does not permit inquiry into jurors’
discussions or “reactions to the evidence as it developed” (cleaned up)).
Finally, the Defendant argues that Juror 50’s statements about his “healing process” and
his hearing testimony as to Question 25 “reveal just how deeply the trauma affected him and
continues to affect him.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9. The Court is unpersuaded. First, at
the March 8 hearing, the Court rejected the Defendant’s proposed follow-up questions on
Juror 50’s “healing process” because the Defendant had not proposed comparable questions
during the voir dire process for other prospective jurors who indicated a personal history of
sexual abuse on their questionnaires. Hearing Tr. at 28–29. Moreover, that an individual has
undergone a “healing process” at some point in his life does not evince that the experience
interferes with his ability to be fair and impartial. Juror 50 credibly testified that his sexual abuse
is not usually on his mind, that the subject matter would not upset him in a way that would
distract him from his duty, and that he would not think about his own experience in a way that
his hearing testimony as to Question 25 “reveal just how deeply the trauma affected him and
continues to affect him.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9. The Court is unpersuaded. First, at
the March 8 hearing, the Court rejected the Defendant’s proposed follow-up questions on
Juror 50’s “healing process” because the Defendant had not proposed comparable questions
during the voir dire process for other prospective jurors who indicated a personal history of
sexual abuse on their questionnaires. Hearing Tr. at 28–29. Moreover, that an individual has
undergone a “healing process” at some point in his life does not evince that the experience
interferes with his ability to be fair and impartial. Juror 50 credibly testified that his sexual abuse
is not usually on his mind, that the subject matter would not upset him in a way that would
distract him from his duty, and that he would not think about his own experience in a way that
36
DOJ-OGR-00010359
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document