DOJ-OGR-00009155.jpg
640 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government memorandum)
File Size:
640 KB
Summary
This is page 36 of a legal filing (Document 615) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text is a government argument refuting the defense's claim that 'Juror 50' needs to be probed further regarding their ability to assess witness credibility in sexual assault cases. The government argues that Juror 50 already affirmed this ability in their questionnaire (Question 47) and that any further inquiry regarding the juror's personal history of abuse should be limited and conducted privately (sidebar or in camera).
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a post-trial inquiry regarding questionnaire answers (Question 47 and 48).
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on case number), who is arguing for further inquiry into Juror 50.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Southern District of New York (implied by case number format and context)
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR)
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
Defendant claims that had Juror 50 answered Question 48 in the affirmative, the Court... would have 'probed' him
Key Quotes (3)
"This inquiry should be tightly focused."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009155.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror 50 already stated in the juror questionnaire that he could assess the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault or abuse just like he would any other witness."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009155.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court need not inquire about the details of the victim’s sexual abuse, just as the Court did not probe such details with respect to other jurors who answered Question 48 affirmatively."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009155.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,731 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 36 of 49
This inquiry should be tightly focused. [REDACTED BLOCK]
On this last subject, the defendant claims that had Juror 50 answered Question 48 in the affirmative, the Court and the parties would have “probed” him about various topics, which the defendant suggests are necessary topics of examination. (Def. Mem. at 44). The record refutes that assertion, and inquiry along the lines proposed by the defendant is not necessary.
The defendant argues that the Court would have inquired whether Juror 50 was able to assess the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault or abuse just like he would any other witness. (Id.). As an initial matter, Juror 50 already stated in the juror questionnaire that he could assess the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault or abuse just like he would any other witness. (Def. Ex. 1, Question 47). Moreover, the Court did not ask jurors who answered Question 48 in the affirmative any follow up questions about Question 47. Accordingly, there is no need to inquire about this subject any further at a hearing, beyond perhaps reaffirming that Juror 50’s answer to Question 47 was correct.
16 The Court need not inquire about the details of the victim’s sexual abuse, just as the Court did not probe such details with respect to other jurors who answered Question 48 affirmatively. (See Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 18-19, 52-57, 200, 207-08, 259, 293, 532, 635). In the event the Court believes that details need to be elicited, beyond those few details Juror 50 has provided publicly, such inquiry should be conducted at sidebar or in camera. See Ianniello, 866 F.2d at 544; Shakur, 723 F. Supp. at 928.
34
DOJ-OGR-00009155
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document