DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
632 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
632 KB
Summary
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It addresses an appeal argument by Ghislaine Maxwell, who contends she deserves a new trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standard of 'abuse of discretion' and cites precedents indicating that courts are reluctant to investigate jurors post-verdict and grant new trials only in extraordinary circumstances.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
Denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial after a special evidentiary hearing.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in footnotes for legal precedent.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Unknown (prior to document)
Key Quotes (3)
"Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
Quote #1
"We have been extremely reluctant to 'haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
Quote #2
"While courts can 'vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,' ... they should do so 'sparingly' and only in 'the most extraordinary circumstances.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,739 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page17 of 26
3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell’s Motion for a New Trial
Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell’s motion for a new trial.
We review a District Court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.27 We have been extremely reluctant to “haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.” 28 While courts can “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so “sparingly” and only in “the most extraordinary circumstances.” 29 A district court “has
27 See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). “[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance.” United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the term of art “abuse of discretion” includes errors of law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or “a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
28 United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983).
29 Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134.
17
DOJ-OGR-00021811
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document