DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
600 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / appellate brief (page 18 of 26)
File Size:
600 KB
Summary
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It discusses a Rule 33 motion regarding Juror 50's erroneous responses during voir dire in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text argues that under the 'McDonough' standard, a new trial is not warranted because the District Court found the juror's errors were not deliberate and would not have resulted in a strike for cause.
People (2)
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Applied the McDonough standard and ruled on Juror 50's credibility.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Cited in footnote 33 regarding the standard for invalidating trial results.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (indicated in footer stamp).
|
|
| McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. |
Part of the case citation establishing the legal standard.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Key Quotes (4)
"Under McDonough, a party seeking a new trial “must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
Quote #1
"The District Court... determined that Juror 50’s erroneous responses during voir dire were “not deliberately incorrect”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
Quote #2
"“he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
Quote #3
"Maxwell did not challenge the inclusion of other jurors who disclosed past experience with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,541 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page18 of 26
broad discretion to decide Rule 33 motions based upon its evaluation of the proof produced” and is shown deference on appeal.30
A Rule 33 motion based on a juror’s alleged erroneous response during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.31 Under McDonough, a party seeking a new trial “must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.”32
The District Court applied the McDonough standard, found Juror 50’s testimony credible, and determined that Juror 50’s erroneous responses during voir dire were “not deliberately incorrect” and that “he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided accurate responses to the questionnaire.”33 In fact, as the District Court noted, Maxwell did not challenge the inclusion of other jurors who disclosed past experience with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment. This is
30 United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 364 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
31 464 U.S. 548 (1984).
32 Id. at 556.
33 A-340 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court reminds us that “[t]o invalidate the result of a [ ] trial because of a juror’s mistaken, though honest response to a question, is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 555.
18
DOJ-OGR-00000019
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document