DOJ-OGR-00010326.jpg
727 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion (page 3 of 40)
File Size:
727 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 1, 2022. The text details the Court's findings regarding 'Juror 50,' concluding that the juror's inaccurate answers on a selection questionnaire were due to rushing/distraction rather than deliberate deception. The Court asserts that even if Juror 50 had disclosed his history of sexual abuse accurately, he would not have been struck for cause because he demonstrated the ability to serve fairly and impartially.
People (2)
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by the case header format (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
|
|
| DOJ |
Indicated in the footer stamp (DOJ-OGR).
|
Key Quotes (5)
"skimmed way too fast"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010326.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror 50’s lack of attention and care in responding accurately to every question on the questionnaire is regrettable, but the Court is confident that the failure to disclose was not deliberate."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010326.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court further finds that Juror 50 was not biased and would not have been stricken for cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010326.jpg
Quote #3
"survivors of rape have and can serve impartially in trials charging the crime of rape."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010326.jpg
Quote #4
"Thus, this Court would not have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010326.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,185 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 40
His tone, demeanor, and responsiveness gave no indication of false testimony. The Court thus
credits his testimony that he was distracted as he filled out the questionnaire and “skimmed way
too fast,” leading him to misunderstand some of the questions. Assuming mistakenly that he
would not be one of the twelve jurors selected from the hundreds of prospective jurors who had
been summoned, he rushed through the questionnaire. This led to inaccurate answers. Juror 50’s
lack of attention and care in responding accurately to every question on the questionnaire is
regrettable, but the Court is confident that the failure to disclose was not deliberate.
credits his testimony that he was distracted as he filled out the questionnaire and “skimmed way
too fast,” leading him to misunderstand some of the questions. Assuming mistakenly that he
would not be one of the twelve jurors selected from the hundreds of prospective jurors who had
been summoned, he rushed through the questionnaire. This led to inaccurate answers. Juror 50’s
lack of attention and care in responding accurately to every question on the questionnaire is
regrettable, but the Court is confident that the failure to disclose was not deliberate.
The Court further finds that Juror 50 was not biased and would not have been stricken for
cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately. At the hearing, the
Court asked Juror 50 the same set of questions that it asked of all prospective jurors who had
indicated prior experience with sexual abuse on the questionnaire. These questions are typical of
how trial court judges seek to assess potential bias and determine—based on the juror’s
responses—whether the juror should be struck for cause. This is so because the key question is
not simply whether an individual has had experiences similar to the issues that will be explored
at trial, but whether the individual can serve fairly and impartially.
cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately. At the hearing, the
Court asked Juror 50 the same set of questions that it asked of all prospective jurors who had
indicated prior experience with sexual abuse on the questionnaire. These questions are typical of
how trial court judges seek to assess potential bias and determine—based on the juror’s
responses—whether the juror should be struck for cause. This is so because the key question is
not simply whether an individual has had experiences similar to the issues that will be explored
at trial, but whether the individual can serve fairly and impartially.
This Court has presided over a murder trial in which a juror who had a family member
murdered was not struck for cause. So too victims of fraud serve faithfully in fraud trials and
individuals who have been discriminated against serve fairly in discrimination cases. And
survivors of rape have and can serve impartially in trials charging the crime of rape. In this case,
Juror 50’s responses at the hearing to the questions regarding his ability to be a fair and impartial
juror, even in light of his past experience of sexual abuse, established that he too could serve
fairly and impartially. Thus, this Court would not have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had
provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.
murdered was not struck for cause. So too victims of fraud serve faithfully in fraud trials and
individuals who have been discriminated against serve fairly in discrimination cases. And
survivors of rape have and can serve impartially in trials charging the crime of rape. In this case,
Juror 50’s responses at the hearing to the questions regarding his ability to be a fair and impartial
juror, even in light of his past experience of sexual abuse, established that he too could serve
fairly and impartially. Thus, this Court would not have struck Juror 50 for cause if he had
provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.
3
DOJ-OGR-00010326
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document