DOJ-OGR-00010343.jpg
708 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion
File Size:
708 KB
Summary
This document is page 20 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details the Court's analysis of 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror deliberately concealed a history of sexual abuse by a stepbrother when answering questionnaire questions 48 and 49. The Court concludes that the juror's inconsistent answers were due to skimming the questionnaire and a personal definition of 'family' that excluded the stepbrother, ultimately finding the juror's explanations reasonable and credible.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a post-trial hearing regarding potential misconduct and non-disclosure on a questionnaire.
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as 'the Defendant'; her legal team filed the 'Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.'
|
| Stepbrother of Juror 50 | Family Member / Abuser |
The individual who sexually abused Juror 50; subject of the dispute regarding the definition of 'family'.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judiciary |
The entity evaluating Juror 50's credibility and issuing the ruling.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'
|
|
| US District Court |
Implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
|
Relationships (2)
Juror 50 stated he was sexually abused by 'a family member' but also noted he 'never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family'.
Defendant argues Juror 50 was inconsistent; Court evaluates Juror 50's credibility against Defendant's arguments.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010343.jpg
Quote #1
"he 'didn’t even consider . . . at all' whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question 49 as he 'flew through' the questionnaire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010343.jpg
Quote #2
"by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010343.jpg
Quote #3
"never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they lived with us for a few years."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010343.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,135 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 20 of 40
yes friend or family, or no.” Id. at 15, 21. Consistent with his explanation that he skimmed the
questionnaire, he testified that he “did not pick up on” that pattern when filling out the
questionnaire, id. at 15, and read only “the friend or family” and “missed that ‘have you,’ and
then ‘yes self’ while reading,” Question 48, id. at 21. And when asked a follow-up question,
Juror 50 said he was not “surprised” at the time, but only surprised “thinking now” that the
questionnaire had asked about the sexual abuse history of friends and family but not about a
juror’s own sexual abuse history. Id. at 21–22. The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each
of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible.
questionnaire, he testified that he “did not pick up on” that pattern when filling out the
questionnaire, id. at 15, and read only “the friend or family” and “missed that ‘have you,’ and
then ‘yes self’ while reading,” Question 48, id. at 21. And when asked a follow-up question,
Juror 50 said he was not “surprised” at the time, but only surprised “thinking now” that the
questionnaire had asked about the sexual abuse history of friends and family but not about a
juror’s own sexual abuse history. Id. at 21–22. The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each
of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible.
Third, the Defendant argues that, as to Question 49, Juror 50 was inconsistent in first
stating that he was sexually abused by “a family member, who is no longer part of the family,”
but then stating that he “never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they
lived with us for a few years.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9–10 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 8, 11).
The Court acknowledges the tension between these two statements, but does not agree that
tension suggests Juror 50 deliberately concealed his stepbrother’s abuse. Juror 50’s explanation
of his answer to Question 49 proceeded in three stages. He clarified, first, that on November 4,
he “didn’t even consider . . . at all” whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question
49 as he “flew through” the questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 11–12. At the hearing, he initially
stated that “No” was an accurate answer because, as the Defendant notes, he “never considered”
the stepbrother to be a member of his family. Id. And finally, when asked whether, “[a]s [he]
sit[s] here now,” what his answer to Question 49 would be, Juror 50 said “it would have been
yes” because “by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother.” Id. at 12–13. In short, it
was only after Juror 50 was made to reflect on the question and its answer that he reached an
stating that he was sexually abused by “a family member, who is no longer part of the family,”
but then stating that he “never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they
lived with us for a few years.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9–10 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 8, 11).
The Court acknowledges the tension between these two statements, but does not agree that
tension suggests Juror 50 deliberately concealed his stepbrother’s abuse. Juror 50’s explanation
of his answer to Question 49 proceeded in three stages. He clarified, first, that on November 4,
he “didn’t even consider . . . at all” whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question
49 as he “flew through” the questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 11–12. At the hearing, he initially
stated that “No” was an accurate answer because, as the Defendant notes, he “never considered”
the stepbrother to be a member of his family. Id. And finally, when asked whether, “[a]s [he]
sit[s] here now,” what his answer to Question 49 would be, Juror 50 said “it would have been
yes” because “by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother.” Id. at 12–13. In short, it
was only after Juror 50 was made to reflect on the question and its answer that he reached an
20
DOJ-OGR-00010343
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document