DOJ-OGR-00009142.jpg
726 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court opinion/brief)
File Size:
726 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Document 615) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's motion claiming juror bias, specifically discussing the legal standards for 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias in a post-trial context. The Government argues that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry and cites various legal precedents (Torres, Greer, Smith v. Phillips) to support the position that the defendant's arguments are unpersuasive.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the motion being denied; arguing regarding juror bias (Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell based on Case 1:20-cr-0...
|
| Juror | Juror |
Unnamed juror whose impartiality is being challenged post-trial.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Court handling the case (implied by case header).
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals cited for legal precedent.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution, submitting arguments against the defendant's motion.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of the document (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied jurisdiction based on Case 1:20-cr-00330.
|
Relationships (1)
The Government submits arguments opposing the Defendant's motion regarding juror bias.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Defendant’s Arguments Regarding Bias Are Unpersuasive"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009142.jpg
Quote #1
"the remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity to prove actual bias"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009142.jpg
Quote #2
"Actual bias is ‘bias in fact’—the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference that the person will not act with entire impartiality."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009142.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,165 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 23 of 49
would have truthfully affirmed that he could be fair and impartial, then the record is clear that the
Court would not have struck him for cause, and the defendant’s motion should be denied.
Court would not have struck him for cause, and the defendant’s motion should be denied.
b. The Defendant’s Arguments Regarding Bias Are Unpersuasive
A party may challenge a juror for cause based only on “narrowly specified, provable and
legally cognizable bases.” United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997) (quotation and
citation omitted). In the context of voir dire, challenges for cause generally fall into one of three
“limited” categories: actual bias, implied bias, or inferable bias. Id. However, in the different
context presented here—a post-trial allegation of juror bias, in a retrospective determination of a
hypothetical challenge for cause—the Second Circuit has stated that it is an open question whether
the second and third of these categories are applicable. See Greer, 285 F.3d at 172. That is, “the
remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity
to prove actual bias,” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 (1982) (emphasis added), and, as such,
it is unclear that bias may be implied or inferred, see Greer, 285 F.3d at 172. The Government
submits that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry in this context, see Smith, 455 U.S. at 215, but
nevertheless addresses each category in turn.
legally cognizable bases.” United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1997) (quotation and
citation omitted). In the context of voir dire, challenges for cause generally fall into one of three
“limited” categories: actual bias, implied bias, or inferable bias. Id. However, in the different
context presented here—a post-trial allegation of juror bias, in a retrospective determination of a
hypothetical challenge for cause—the Second Circuit has stated that it is an open question whether
the second and third of these categories are applicable. See Greer, 285 F.3d at 172. That is, “the
remedy for allegations of juror partiality is a hearing in which the defendant has the opportunity
to prove actual bias,” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 (1982) (emphasis added), and, as such,
it is unclear that bias may be implied or inferred, see Greer, 285 F.3d at 172. The Government
submits that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry in this context, see Smith, 455 U.S. at 215, but
nevertheless addresses each category in turn.
i. Actual Bias
“Actual bias is ‘bias in fact’—the existence of a state of mind that leads to an inference
that the person will not act with entire impartiality.” Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 (quoting United States
v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936)). “[A] finding of actual bias is based upon determinations of
demeanor and credibility that are peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.” Id. at 44 (quotation
and citation omitted). Actual bias “cannot be found unless a prospective juror is adequately
questioned on voir dire with respect to his or her ability to apply the law impartially.” Id. at 44.
The district court has “broad discretion” in such questioning and “[t]here is no particular script
that the person will not act with entire impartiality.” Torres, 128 F.3d at 43 (quoting United States
v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 133 (1936)). “[A] finding of actual bias is based upon determinations of
demeanor and credibility that are peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.” Id. at 44 (quotation
and citation omitted). Actual bias “cannot be found unless a prospective juror is adequately
questioned on voir dire with respect to his or her ability to apply the law impartially.” Id. at 44.
The district court has “broad discretion” in such questioning and “[t]here is no particular script
21
DOJ-OGR-00009142
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document