DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
839 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / memorandum of law
File Size:
839 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 583) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2022. It argues against the Defendant's request to delay public access to juror questionnaires, specifically citing the misconduct of 'Juror 50' as grounds for a new trial motion. The filing asserts that First Amendment rights and Second Circuit precedent (Lugosch) support immediate unsealing now that the trial has concluded.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals referenced for legal precedent (Lugosch case).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR-00010756'.
|
|
| District Court (implied) |
The court handling 'Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN'.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"The right to public access promises 'immediate' and 'contemporaneous' access."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
Quote #1
"Defendant’s motion requests a new trial because of alleged juror misconduct—and specifically, that 'a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
Quote #2
"Juror 50’s questionnaires will thus... necessarily and directly affect the Court’s decision on whether the existing finding of guilt should be vacated and whether a new trial is appropriate"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
Quote #3
"The trial is over, and the jurors have been dismissed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,363 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 583 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 5
The right to public access promises “immediate” and “contemporaneous”
access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. The Second Circuit has firmly held that
access does not—and should not—hinge on whether a judge has ruled on
the underlying motion. Id. at 126–27. Instead, delay is “effectively a
denial” and undermines the benefits of public scrutiny. Id. at 126. In
Lugosch, the Second Circuit rejected a request to delay access to pending
summary judgment papers. So, too, here Defendant’s request for a delay
should be denied.
access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126. The Second Circuit has firmly held that
access does not—and should not—hinge on whether a judge has ruled on
the underlying motion. Id. at 126–27. Instead, delay is “effectively a
denial” and undermines the benefits of public scrutiny. Id. at 126. In
Lugosch, the Second Circuit rejected a request to delay access to pending
summary judgment papers. So, too, here Defendant’s request for a delay
should be denied.
Juror Questionnaires. The juror questionnaires are judicial documents
because they are relevant and useful to the performance of a judicial
function: selecting a jury, a necessary component of a criminal trial. Here,
the presumptive right to access to these questionnaires is at its apex. In
effect, the sealing of the questionnaires is the equivalent of barring the
public from the oral voir dire. Defendant’s motion requests a new trial
because of alleged juror misconduct—and specifically, that “a juror failed
to answer honestly a material question on voir dire.” Dkt. 570. Juror 50’s
questionnaires will thus, as Defendant recognizes, id., necessarily and
directly affect the Court’s decision on whether the existing finding of guilt
should be vacated and whether a new trial is appropriate—fundamental
Article III determinations. See Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. The
questionnaires for the remaining seated jurors are integral to determining
whether this is a lone or recurring incident.
because they are relevant and useful to the performance of a judicial
function: selecting a jury, a necessary component of a criminal trial. Here,
the presumptive right to access to these questionnaires is at its apex. In
effect, the sealing of the questionnaires is the equivalent of barring the
public from the oral voir dire. Defendant’s motion requests a new trial
because of alleged juror misconduct—and specifically, that “a juror failed
to answer honestly a material question on voir dire.” Dkt. 570. Juror 50’s
questionnaires will thus, as Defendant recognizes, id., necessarily and
directly affect the Court’s decision on whether the existing finding of guilt
should be vacated and whether a new trial is appropriate—fundamental
Article III determinations. See Amodeo I, 44 F.3d at 145. The
questionnaires for the remaining seated jurors are integral to determining
whether this is a lone or recurring incident.
Any original need for sealing the questionnaires for the seated jurors—for
instance, that they might be subject to attempts to influence their
deliberations—has now passed. The trial is over, and the jurors have been
dismissed.
instance, that they might be subject to attempts to influence their
deliberations—has now passed. The trial is over, and the jurors have been
dismissed.
The First Amendment Right of Access
An independent First Amendment right of access attaches where public
access to a document has historically been available (the “experience”
prong) and would be valuable to the process in question (the “logic”
prong). See Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal. (“Press-Enterprise
II”), 478 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1986); Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119–20. Once the right
attaches, it is overcome only by specific, on-the-record findings that
sealing “is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to
access to a document has historically been available (the “experience”
prong) and would be valuable to the process in question (the “logic”
prong). See Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal. (“Press-Enterprise
II”), 478 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1986); Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119–20. Once the right
attaches, it is overcome only by specific, on-the-record findings that
sealing “is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to
3
DOJ-OGR-00010756
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document