DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg

738 KB

Extraction Summary

3
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing (court order/memorandum opinion)
File Size: 738 KB
Summary

This document is Page 43 of a legal filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to compel the production of 'Juror 50's' (Scotty David) private emails and social media records (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram). The prosecution characterizes the defense's request as an inadmissible 'fishing expedition' and argues that the juror's post-trial media interviews or comments on a victim's Twitter post do not justify invading his privacy regarding pre-trial or during-trial communications.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Juror 50 Juror
Subject of a defense request to compel production of communications regarding his jury service and potential bias.
The Defendant Defendant
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on Case 1:20-cr-00330), who is requesting the juror's communications.
Ianniello Case Law Reference
Cited in legal precedent (866 F.2d at 543-44).

Organizations (6)

Name Type Context
Facebook
Social media platform mentioned in discovery request.
Twitter
Social media platform mentioned in discovery request.
LinkedIn
Social media platform mentioned in discovery request.
Instagram
Social media platform mentioned in discovery request.
DOJ
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
The Court
The judicial body presiding over the case.

Timeline (2 events)

Before/During Trial
Defense alleges potential improper communications by Juror 50.
Unknown
Post-trial
Juror 50 made public statements and media interviews regarding his jury service.
Media/Online

Relationships (2)

Juror 50 Adversarial/Legal The Defendant
Defendant is seeking to compel Juror 50's private communications to prove bias.
Juror 50 Communication Victim
Juror 50 made a public comment on a victim's public Twitter post.

Key Quotes (4)

"It is hard to imagine a request more likely to “subject[] juries to harassment” and “inhibit juryroom deliberation,” id. at 543, than the defendant’s request to compel production of a juror’s emails and other written communications"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
Quote #1
"This is a classic fishing expedition and should not be permitted."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
Quote #2
"Juror 50’s public comment on a victim’s public Twitter post after trial does not give the defense license to compel his private communications"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
Quote #3
"even if he received compensation for post-trial interviews that says nothing whatsoever about whether the Court would have struck him for cause before trial based on his alleged experience with sexual abuse."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,198 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 43 of 49
to become a “fishing expedition” but rather must limit the scope of any inquiry “to only what is absolutely necessary to determine the facts with precision.” Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 543-44. It is hard to imagine a request more likely to “subject[] juries to harassment” and “inhibit juryroom deliberation,” id. at 543, than the defendant’s request to compel production of a juror’s emails and other written communications, as well as content from his Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and other social media accounts. (Def. Mem. at 48-49). Not surprisingly, the defendant cites no precedent for this sweeping and invasive request. The Court should reject it.
Moreover, each specific request is improper. Requests 1(b) and 1(c) call for communications between jurors and communications “about Juror No. 50’s jury service,” and thus call for information that, if it exists, is almost certainly inadmissible under Rule 606(b). Moreover, the fact that Juror 50 made some public statements about his jury service does not give the defendant license to compel the production of any statements he may have made to anyone—such as a friend or loved one—about his jury service. This is a classic fishing expedition and should not be permitted. Request 1(a) calls for communications with victims and witnesses, but this too is a fishing expedition: Juror 50’s public comment on a victim’s public Twitter post after trial does not give the defense license to compel his private communications in the vague hope that, contrary to the Court’s instructions, he had some improper communications before or during trial. And Request 1(d) calls for communications about any payment Juror 50 received for media interviews, but even if he received compensation for post-trial interviews that says nothing whatsoever about whether the Court would have struck him for cause before trial based on his alleged experience with sexual abuse.
Requests 2(a) and 2(b) ask the Court to direct numerous social media companies to produce all communications to and from Juror 50 about his jury service and all posts or comments regarding
41
DOJ-OGR-00009162

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document