DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
704 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (order/opinion)
File Size:
704 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 1, 2022. It details the process of screening 694 prospective jurors in November 2021, specifically focusing on the inclusion of questions regarding sexual abuse, assault, and harassment in the juror questionnaire. The text describes how counsel for both the Government and the Defendant reviewed these questionnaires and categorized jurors into four lists regarding their eligibility to serve.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Sought questions about experience with sexual harassment during jury selection.
|
| Counsel | Legal Representatives |
Reviewed completed questionnaires and submitted lists of jurors to the Court.
|
| Prospective Jurors | Juror Pool |
694 individuals who completed the questionnaire.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
Developed questionnaire questions and oversaw the selection process.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Party in the legal case opposing the Defendant.
|
|
| The Court |
US District Court (implied by case number structure).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (2)
References to lists where one party wanted a juror excused but the other did not.
Key Quotes (4)
"Question 49a asked: 'If yes, without listing names, please explain.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
Quote #1
"During five sessions held over three days on November 4, 5, and 12, 2021, 694 prospective jurors completed the questionnaire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
Quote #2
"The Defendant also sought questions about experience with sexual harassment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
Quote #3
"The Court did not resolve any disputes from lists 3 and 4, and those prospective jurors were excused by consent."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010329.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,093 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 6 of 40
other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor,
teacher, or family member.).
teacher, or family member.).
Id. at 25. Like Questions 25 and 48, there were three answer options in the following order:
“Yes (self),” “Yes (friend or family member),” and “No.” The follow-up questions to Question
49 followed the same structure as the follow-up questions to Question 48. Question 49a asked:
“If yes, without listing names, please explain.” Question 49b asked: “If your answer to 49 was
yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in
this case?” and had checkboxes for “Yes” and “No.” Finally, Question 49c asked: “If yes to 49b,
please explain.” Id. The Court developed Questions 48 and 49 in response to requests from both
sides that the Court inquire into a prospective juror’s experience with sexual abuse and assault.
See Dkt. No. 367 at 21, 24. The Defendant also sought questions about experience with sexual
harassment. See id. at 22. Rather than ask several separate questions, the Court adopted a
compromise of two sufficiently broad questions so as not to unduly lengthen the questionnaire.
“Yes (self),” “Yes (friend or family member),” and “No.” The follow-up questions to Question
49 followed the same structure as the follow-up questions to Question 48. Question 49a asked:
“If yes, without listing names, please explain.” Question 49b asked: “If your answer to 49 was
yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in
this case?” and had checkboxes for “Yes” and “No.” Finally, Question 49c asked: “If yes to 49b,
please explain.” Id. The Court developed Questions 48 and 49 in response to requests from both
sides that the Court inquire into a prospective juror’s experience with sexual abuse and assault.
See Dkt. No. 367 at 21, 24. The Defendant also sought questions about experience with sexual
harassment. See id. at 22. Rather than ask several separate questions, the Court adopted a
compromise of two sufficiently broad questions so as not to unduly lengthen the questionnaire.
During five sessions held over three days on November 4, 5, and 12, 2021, 694
prospective jurors completed the questionnaire. See Nov. 15, 2021 Tr. at 2, Dkt. No. 529.
Counsel reviewed the completed questionnaires and jointly submitted four lists to the Court: (1)
prospective jurors that both sides agreed should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that
both sides agreed should be excused or struck for cause; (3) prospective jurors that the Defendant
but not the Government believed should be excused; and (4) prospective jurors that the
Government but not the Defendant believed should be excused. Id. at 2–3. Because the parties
agreed on a sufficient number of prospective jurors to proceed to voir dire, the Court did not
resolve any disputes from lists 3 and 4, and those prospective jurors were excused by consent.
Id. at 2–5.
prospective jurors completed the questionnaire. See Nov. 15, 2021 Tr. at 2, Dkt. No. 529.
Counsel reviewed the completed questionnaires and jointly submitted four lists to the Court: (1)
prospective jurors that both sides agreed should proceed to voir dire; (2) prospective jurors that
both sides agreed should be excused or struck for cause; (3) prospective jurors that the Defendant
but not the Government believed should be excused; and (4) prospective jurors that the
Government but not the Defendant believed should be excused. Id. at 2–3. Because the parties
agreed on a sufficient number of prospective jurors to proceed to voir dire, the Court did not
resolve any disputes from lists 3 and 4, and those prospective jurors were excused by consent.
Id. at 2–5.
6
DOJ-OGR-00010329
DOJ-OGR-00010329
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document