DOJ-OGR-00009122.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
-v.- :
S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
Defendant.
:
------------------------------------------------------------x

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s
motion for a new trial, dated January 19, 2022 (the “Defense Motion”).

A defendant “is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.”
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984) (quotations and
citations omitted). “A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and
it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory
challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have
obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.” Id. at 555. In keeping with these principles, a
defendant seeking a new trial based on a juror’s statements during voir dire faces the heavy burden
of establishing both that the juror deliberately lied, and that the juror otherwise would have been
struck for cause. Id. at 556; United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1994). On the
present record, the defendant has not come close to establishing that the extraordinary remedy of
a new trial is warranted.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny the defendant’s motion based on the
present record. The Court should further deny the defendant’s alternative requests for extensive

1

DOJ-OGR-00009122