DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg
709 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
709 KB
Summary
Page 16 of a legal filing (Document 644) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed March 11, 2022. The defense argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial or hearing because Juror No. 50 failed to truthfully answer voir dire questions 25 and 48, preventing the defense from challenging the juror for cause. The text disputes the government's position on the burden of proof, citing precedents such as McDonough, Langford, and United States v. Stewart.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the legal arguments regarding a new trial motion based on juror misconduct.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Accused of not truthfully answering Questions 25 and 48 during voir dire, creating potential bias.
|
| Blackmun, J. | Supreme Court Justice |
Cited in legal precedent (McDonough).
|
| O’Connor, J. | Supreme Court Justice |
Cited in legal precedent.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Cited for legal precedent (Langford, Haynes).
|
|
| The Government |
Opposing party arguing Ms. Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof regarding juror bias.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (implied by Bates stamp).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (2)
Maxwell's defense argues Juror 50 was biased and untruthful.
Dispute over the burden of proof required for a new trial motion.
Key Quotes (3)
"Imagine the counterfactual scenario in which Juror No. 50 truthfully answered Questions 25 and 48."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell should not be punished because Juror No. 50 did not tell the truth, particularly when Ms. Maxwell could not have challenged Juror No. 50 for cause at the time precisely because he did not tell the truth and she lacked any ability to question the juror."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg
Quote #2
"In the government’s view, however, Ms. Maxwell must carry a heavier burden than she otherwise would because Juror No. 50 did not tell the truth. That neither makes sense nor is fair."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,089 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 16 of 32
trial hearing at which the movant has the opportunity to demonstrate actual bias or, in
exceptional circumstances, that the facts are such that bias is to be inferred.” McDonough, 464
U.S. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (citing Smith, 455 U.S. at 215-16; id. at 220-24
(O’Connor, J., concurring)).
exceptional circumstances, that the facts are such that bias is to be inferred.” McDonough, 464
U.S. at 556-57 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (citing Smith, 455 U.S. at 215-16; id. at 220-24
(O’Connor, J., concurring)).
This is the only fair reading of McDonough and Langford, and it is only conclusion the
Sixth Amendment permits. Imagine the counterfactual scenario in which Juror No. 50 truthfully
answered Questions 25 and 48. If Ms. Maxwell had challenged Juror No. 50 for cause and this
Court had denied that challenge, Ms. Maxwell would be able to raise the issue in a new trial
motion and, if that were denied, on appeal. In the new trial motion or on appeal, Ms. Maxwell’s
only burden would be to prove that Juror No. 50 was impliedly, inferably, or actually biased.
E.g., United States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980, 983 (2d Cir. 1968) (new trial required when a
deliberating juror is actually or impliedly biased). She would not have to prove any inadvertent
falsehoods or deceit by Juror No. 50.
Sixth Amendment permits. Imagine the counterfactual scenario in which Juror No. 50 truthfully
answered Questions 25 and 48. If Ms. Maxwell had challenged Juror No. 50 for cause and this
Court had denied that challenge, Ms. Maxwell would be able to raise the issue in a new trial
motion and, if that were denied, on appeal. In the new trial motion or on appeal, Ms. Maxwell’s
only burden would be to prove that Juror No. 50 was impliedly, inferably, or actually biased.
E.g., United States v. Haynes, 398 F.2d 980, 983 (2d Cir. 1968) (new trial required when a
deliberating juror is actually or impliedly biased). She would not have to prove any inadvertent
falsehoods or deceit by Juror No. 50.
In the government’s view, however, Ms. Maxwell must carry a heavier burden than she
otherwise would because Juror No. 50 did not tell the truth. That neither makes sense nor is fair.
Ms. Maxwell should not be punished because Juror No. 50 did not tell the truth, particularly
when Ms. Maxwell could not have challenged Juror No. 50 for cause at the time precisely
because he did not tell the truth and she lacked any ability to question the juror.
otherwise would because Juror No. 50 did not tell the truth. That neither makes sense nor is fair.
Ms. Maxwell should not be punished because Juror No. 50 did not tell the truth, particularly
when Ms. Maxwell could not have challenged Juror No. 50 for cause at the time precisely
because he did not tell the truth and she lacked any ability to question the juror.
Fortunately, the government’s view is wrong, as five justices in McDonough made clear
and the Second Circuit held in Langford. Under Second Circuit law, as the Court held in United
States v. Stewart, “[A] party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must
demonstrate first, that the juror’s voir dire response was false and second, that the correct
response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” United States v. Stewart,
and the Second Circuit held in Langford. Under Second Circuit law, as the Court held in United
States v. Stewart, “[A] party alleging unfairness based on undisclosed juror bias must
demonstrate first, that the juror’s voir dire response was false and second, that the correct
response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” United States v. Stewart,
11
DOJ-OGR-00009885
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document