DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
773 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court motion/memorandum)
File Size:
773 KB
Summary
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 616) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It argues that Rule of Evidence 606(b) should not prevent an inquiry into juror misconduct, citing constitutional rights and the precedent of *Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado*. The text specifically alleges that 'Juror No. 50' showed bias and lied during *voir dire*, and reveals that a 'second juror' contacted the *New York Times* admitting they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse but failed to disclose this on the jury questionnaire (Question 48).
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal defense; arguing for an inquiry into juror misconduct to vindicate her right to a fair trial.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Accused of bias and providing false answers during voir dire; made statements to media/social media.
|
| Second Juror | Juror |
Unnamed juror who alerted the New York Times they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse and failed to disclose it o...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| New York Times |
Media outlet that the 'second juror' contacted regarding their past abuse.
|
|
| The government |
Prosecution; accused by defense of wanting to 'bury its head in the sand'.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-24
Filing of Document 616 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Court Record
Defense Counsel
The Court
Unknown (During Jury Selection)
Relationships (2)
Maxwell's defense argues Juror 50 was biased and committed misconduct.
Juror alerted the New York Times regarding their role in the case and personal history.
Key Quotes (4)
"The government would like to bury its head in the sand and deprive Ms. Maxwell of the"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell possesses evidence from external to the deliberations to substantiate Juror No. 50’s bias."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
Quote #2
"a second juror has alerted the New York Times that they too had deliberated on the case and were the victim of childhood sexual abuse."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
Quote #3
"That juror whose identity is currently unknown also failed to disclose their victimhood in response to Question 48."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,331 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 28 of 32
For all the reasons given in the motion, Rule of Evidence 606(b) poses no bar to the inquiry this Court should conduct on Ms. Maxwell’s motion, primarily because Ms. Maxwell possesses evidence from external to the deliberations to substantiate Juror No. 50’s bias. To the extent the Rule might apply as a bar to limit certain questions, it violates Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional rights to due process and to confrontation as applied to her. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI; cf. Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (finding the no-impeachment rule of 606(b) unconstitutional as applied to juror statements indicating racial bias). The Rules of Evidence cannot constitutionally prevent Ms. Maxwell from proving juror misconduct and vindicating her right to a fair and impartial jury.11
3. The Additional Biased Juror Should Be Questioned
As detailed in the motion at 21, a second juror has alerted the New York Times that they too had deliberated on the case and were the victim of childhood sexual abuse. That juror whose identity is currently unknown also failed to disclose their victimhood in response to Question 48.12 The government would like to bury its head in the sand and deprive Ms. Maxwell of the
__________________
11 See also Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 49 & n.3 (holding, before Pena-Rodriguez was decided, that Rule 606(b) bars inquiry to “deliberations evidence” when seeking a new trial based on juror false statements during voir dire but recognizing that “[t]here may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged. If and when such a case arises, the Court can consider whether the usual safeguards are or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process. We need not consider the question, however, for those facts are not presented here.”).
11 See also Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 49 & n.3 (holding, before Pena-Rodriguez was decided, that Rule 606(b) bars inquiry to “deliberations evidence” when seeking a new trial based on juror false statements during voir dire but recognizing that “[t]here may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged. If and when such a case arises, the Court can consider whether the usual safeguards are or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process. We need not consider the question, however, for those facts are not presented here.”).
Warger doesn’t control here, though, if only because it was a civil and not a criminal case. Moreover, in this case, Juror No. 50’s statements admitting to having provided false answers during voir dire are statements he personally made to the media and on social media. Those statements are not “deliberations evidence” and not subject to Rule 606(b) in any case, even under Warger.
[REDACTED BLOCK]
23
DOJ-OGR-00009218
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document