DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (opinion/order excerpt)
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing post-trial motions regarding 'Juror 50'. It discusses the juror's media interviews where he admitted to being a sexual abuse victim despite checking 'no' on his questionnaire, prompting the Defendant to file for a new trial on January 19, 2022. The document also details a phone call on January 5, 2022, where Juror 50 contacted the Jury Department seeking guidance and access to his questionnaire, which was denied.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of the document; gave media interviews admitting to being a sexual abuse victim despite checking 'no' on the ...
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by Case 1:20-cr-00330); filed motions for a new trial based on Juror 50's conduct.
|
| District Executive | Court Official |
Returned Juror 50's call at the Court's direction; informed the juror the Court could not provide legal guidance or t...
|
| Second Juror | Juror |
Mentioned in a New York Times article as having described being a victim in an interview.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; opposed the motion for a new trial.
|
|
| The Court |
Southern District of New York (SDNY); issuing the order/opinion.
|
|
| Jury Department of the Southern District of New York |
Received a call from Juror 50 asking for guidance.
|
|
| New York Times |
Published an article reporting on a second juror.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court and Jury Department.
|
Relationships (2)
District Executive returned Juror 50's call at the Court's direction.
Defendant filed motion for new trial based on Juror 50's conduct.
Key Quotes (4)
"described being a victim of sexual abuse"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
Quote #1
"flew through"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
Quote #2
"because based on undisputed, publicly available information, the Court can and should order a new trial without any evidentiary hearing."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
Quote #3
"a second juror described in an interview . . . having been"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,743 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page97 of 217
SA-351
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 21
SA-351
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 21
press outlets about his jury service and requested a hearing be held on the matter. Dkt. No. 568.
The letter noted that in the interviews, which were both in print and on video, the juror
“described being a victim of sexual abuse” and asserted that he “flew through” the juror
questionnaire and did not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at
1. The Government indicated in a redacted footnote that it believed the juror to be Juror 50, and
a review of his questionnaire showed that he had provided a negative response to a question that
asked whether a prospective juror had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 2 n.2.¹ Finally, the
Government requested that the Court offer court-appointed counsel to the juror in the event a
hearing was ordered. A letter from the Defendant followed shortly thereafter also informing the
Court about the juror’s interviews. Dkt. No. 569. The Defendant filed a second letter that same
day opposing the Government’s request “because based on undisputed, publicly available
information, the Court can and should order a new trial without any evidentiary hearing.” Dkt.
No. 570.²
The letter noted that in the interviews, which were both in print and on video, the juror
“described being a victim of sexual abuse” and asserted that he “flew through” the juror
questionnaire and did not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at
1. The Government indicated in a redacted footnote that it believed the juror to be Juror 50, and
a review of his questionnaire showed that he had provided a negative response to a question that
asked whether a prospective juror had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 2 n.2.¹ Finally, the
Government requested that the Court offer court-appointed counsel to the juror in the event a
hearing was ordered. A letter from the Defendant followed shortly thereafter also informing the
Court about the juror’s interviews. Dkt. No. 569. The Defendant filed a second letter that same
day opposing the Government’s request “because based on undisputed, publicly available
information, the Court can and should order a new trial without any evidentiary hearing.” Dkt.
No. 570.²
The Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on January 19, 2022. The Government
opposed the motion on February 2, 2022, and the Defendant filed a reply in support on February
9, 2022. In addition to Juror 50’s post-trial interviews, the Defendant’s motion relies on a New
York Times article reporting that “a second juror described in an interview . . . having been
opposed the motion on February 2, 2022, and the Defendant filed a reply in support on February
9, 2022. In addition to Juror 50’s post-trial interviews, the Defendant’s motion relies on a New
York Times article reporting that “a second juror described in an interview . . . having been
_________________________________________________________________
¹ The Government proposed redacting the footnote because the juror questionnaire was not a public document at that
time. Because (for the reasons explained below) the Court now unseals the questionnaire, that redaction is no longer
necessary.
¹ The Government proposed redacting the footnote because the juror questionnaire was not a public document at that
time. Because (for the reasons explained below) the Court now unseals the questionnaire, that redaction is no longer
necessary.
² For completeness of the record, the Court notes the following occurred also on January 5, 2022: The Jury
Department of the Southern District of New York received a call from Juror 50 asking for guidance because of
statements he had given to certain media outlets that were being widely reported on in the press and inquiring
whether he needed an attorney. At the Court’s direction, the District Executive returned Juror 50’s call and
informed him that the Court was unable to provide any guidance or response to his question. Juror 50 then asked the
District Executive if he could access his questionnaire. The District Executive, again at the Court’s direction,
informed Juror 50 that the questionnaire was not a public document and could not be provided to him.
3
Department of the Southern District of New York received a call from Juror 50 asking for guidance because of
statements he had given to certain media outlets that were being widely reported on in the press and inquiring
whether he needed an attorney. At the Court’s direction, the District Executive returned Juror 50’s call and
informed him that the Court was unable to provide any guidance or response to his question. Juror 50 then asked the
District Executive if he could access his questionnaire. The District Executive, again at the Court’s direction,
informed Juror 50 that the questionnaire was not a public document and could not be provided to him.
3
DOJ-OGR-00021527
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document