DOJ-OGR-00020981.jpg

695 KB

Extraction Summary

3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court order / legal ruling (case 1:20-cr-00330-ajn)
File Size: 695 KB
Summary

This document is a court ruling from April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court rejects the Defendant's argument that 'Juror 50' was biased for failing to follow instructions during the jury questionnaire phase. The Court accepts Juror 50's testimony that while he was distracted (thinking about his ex) during the questionnaire, he was fully attentive and compliant during voir dire and the actual trial.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Juror 50 Juror
Subject of a bias inquiry; accused by the defense of failing to follow instructions during the questionnaire phase.
The Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) Defendant
Argued that Juror 50 was biased and unable to serve impartially. Identified via reference to 'Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.'
The Court (Judge AJN) Judge/Adjudicator
Rejected the Defendant's argument regarding Juror 50; evaluated Juror 50's testimony and conduct.

Organizations (2)

Name Type Context
DOJ
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR').
The Court
Federal District Court (Southern District of New York, implied by case number format).

Timeline (3 events)

Unknown
Jury Questionnaire Session
Court context
Unknown
Voir Dire
Courtroom
Unknown
Trial
Courtroom

Relationships (1)

Ghislaine Maxwell Legal Adversary (Post-Trial) Juror 50
Maxwell argued Juror 50 was biased and unfit to serve.

Key Quotes (5)

"Juror 50’s testimony that he was 'absolutely not' concerned with following the Court’s instructions when filling out the questionnaire"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020981.jpg
Quote #1
"he was 'super distracted' and believed that there was no possibility that he would be selected for the jury."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020981.jpg
Quote #2
"sitting there for hours . . . thinking about [his] ex."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020981.jpg
Quote #3
"Voir dire, he testified, was a 'different situation.'"
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020981.jpg
Quote #4
"The Court confirmed that Juror 50 'carefully' followed the Court’s instructions during voir dire and trial."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00020981.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,215 characters)

Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page155 of 221
A-355
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 38 of 40
3. The Court rejects the Defendant’s additional post-hearing argument that Juror 50 was biased because he failed to follow instructions.
In her post-hearing briefing, the Defendant argues that Juror 50’s testimony that he was “absolutely not” concerned with following the Court’s instructions when filling out the questionnaire is an additional ground for concluding that Juror 50 was unable to serve as an unbiased juror. Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 11–12 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 18). The Court disagrees.
Juror 50’s testimony established that his lack of diligence was limited to the questionnaire session. Juror 50 showed up for trial on time every day and appeared to the Court that he was attentive throughout trial. There is no indication that Juror 50 failed to follow this Court’s instructions during voir dire, trial, or deliberations. Juror 50 explained that he was unconcerned with following the Court’s instructions while completing the questionnaire because he was “super distracted” and believed that there was no possibility that he would be selected for the jury. Hearing Tr. at 40. Voir dire, he testified, was a “different situation.” Id. at 41. When he answered the Court’s questions in person at voir dire, he had not been “sitting there for hours . . . thinking about [his] ex.” Id. He felt confident that he accurately answered all of the Court’s questions. This included affirming that he was able to follow the Court’s instructions as to the presumption of innocence and the law generally, the prohibition on consuming media on the case or any other extraneous information, and his ability to put any prior knowledge to the side and decide the case based on the evidence, or lack of evidence, presented at trial. Voir Dire Tr. at 128–31. Under oath, he testified that although he “can become distracted,” that “had no effect” on him serving and “listening to all the evidence given during the trial.” Hearing Tr. at 41. The Court confirmed that Juror 50 “carefully” followed the Court’s instructions during voir dire and trial. Id.
38
DOJ-OGR-00020981

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document