DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
739 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (defense reply)
File Size:
739 KB
Summary
This document is page 29 of a defense filing (Document 616) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues for a hearing and discovery regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically alleging that a second juror (in addition to Juror No. 50) failed to disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire. The defense cites a New York Times article and statements by Juror No. 50 as evidence, while rebutting the government's objections to post-trial discovery.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the trial; requesting discovery regarding juror misconduct.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Made a media statement disclosing that a second juror was a victim of abuse; mentioned in discovery request.
|
| Second Juror | Juror (Unnamed) |
Alleged to have been biased and dishonest during voir dire regarding past abuse.
|
| Stewart | Legal Precedent |
Referenced in case citation United States v. Stewart regarding standards for juror misconduct hearings.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Prosecution; opposing the defense's request for a hearing and discovery.
|
|
| New York Times |
Media outlet that published an article used as evidence of juror misconduct.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedent.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp).
|
Relationships (2)
Juror No. 50's media statement that a second juror disclosed that they were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Defense arguing against government opposition to discovery.
Key Quotes (4)
"Where there is "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
Quote #1
"The government paints a parade of horrors to try to dissuade the Court from pursuing this second clear instance of a juror’s inaccurate voir dire statement on a critical issue in this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
Quote #2
"Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Discovery"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
Quote #3
"Obviously, Ms. Maxwell would be requesting communications that occurred outside of deliberations."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,221 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 32
ability to establish that yet a second juror was biased by having been a victim of the very type of
crime at issue in this trial. The cases relied on by the government are inapposite as none reach
the issue of whether a juror was dishonest in response to voir dire questions regarding whether
they had been the victim of the same type of crime at issue. See Resp. at 38-39. Importantly, the
government cites only to cases where the only evidence that a juror had engaged in misconduct
was a news article to that effect. Here, there are two pieces of evidence: one, the New York
Times article, and two, Juror No. 50’s media statement that a second juror disclosed that they
were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Where there is "clear, strong, substantial and
incontrovertible evidence" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required. United States
v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2006).
crime at issue in this trial. The cases relied on by the government are inapposite as none reach
the issue of whether a juror was dishonest in response to voir dire questions regarding whether
they had been the victim of the same type of crime at issue. See Resp. at 38-39. Importantly, the
government cites only to cases where the only evidence that a juror had engaged in misconduct
was a news article to that effect. Here, there are two pieces of evidence: one, the New York
Times article, and two, Juror No. 50’s media statement that a second juror disclosed that they
were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Where there is "clear, strong, substantial and
incontrovertible evidence" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required. United States
v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2006).
The government paints a parade of horrors to try to dissuade the Court from pursuing this
second clear instance of a juror’s inaccurate voir dire statement on a critical issue in this case.
Resp. at 37. Yet simply asking the other 11 jurors one question, whether they were the victim of
childhood sexual abuse is not the intrusion the government suggests; the juror apparently felt
comfortable sharing that information both during deliberations and also to the New York Times.
second clear instance of a juror’s inaccurate voir dire statement on a critical issue in this case.
Resp. at 37. Yet simply asking the other 11 jurors one question, whether they were the victim of
childhood sexual abuse is not the intrusion the government suggests; the juror apparently felt
comfortable sharing that information both during deliberations and also to the New York Times.
4. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Discovery
The government cites no authority for its request to foreclose discovery in advance of the
hearing, nor could they given that such discovery is often necessary to establish the very
misconduct at issue. The government’s complaints center on their view that the requested
discovery is either overbroad or violative of Rule 606(b). The government intentionally mis-
reads the defendant’s request. Obviously, Ms. Maxwell would be requesting communications
that occurred outside of deliberations. It is also surprising that the government thinks that there
will be a "high volume" of social media material during the "relevant time frame," i.e., between
when Juror No. 50 [REDACTED]
hearing, nor could they given that such discovery is often necessary to establish the very
misconduct at issue. The government’s complaints center on their view that the requested
discovery is either overbroad or violative of Rule 606(b). The government intentionally mis-
reads the defendant’s request. Obviously, Ms. Maxwell would be requesting communications
that occurred outside of deliberations. It is also surprising that the government thinks that there
will be a "high volume" of social media material during the "relevant time frame," i.e., between
when Juror No. 50 [REDACTED]
24
DOJ-OGR-00009219
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document