DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
677 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (federal court filing)
File Size:
677 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text denies the defendant's Rule 33 motion for a new trial and outlines the background of the jury selection process, detailing how it was conducted under COVID-19 protocols using questionnaires and voir dire to screen for bias in a high-profile case. It references specific docket entries (366, 367, 404, 427, 459) and transcript dates.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Subject of the motion for a new trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE refers to Ghislaine Maxwell)
|
| Prospective Jurors | Jurors |
Subjects of the selection process described in the background
|
| Court Staff | Court Personnel |
Mentioned regarding health safety protocols during the pandemic
|
| The Court | Judge/Judicial Body |
Developed the questionnaire and issued instructions
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District of New York |
Federal court jurisdiction whose COVID-19 protocols were followed
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00010327)
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-04-01
Unspecified (Pre-trial)
Jury Selection Process (Questionnaire and Voir Dire)
Southern District of New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the trial and jurisdiction
|
Relationships (1)
The Court prepared those instructions with the parties’ input.
Key Quotes (3)
"The Defendant’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is therefore DENIED."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
Quote #1
"The jury selection process in this case was designed to screen a sufficient number of prospective jurors for the high-profile trial while also complying with the Southern District of New York’s COVID-19 protocols"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
Quote #2
"The questionnaire was designed to pre-screen for 'the major for-cause strike issues in the case'—that is, 'the trial’s length and schedule, a juror’s personal knowledge of the parties, [the] extent of a juror’s awareness of publicity about the case and the defendant, and any bias due to publicity or as a result of the nature of the charges.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010327.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,979 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 40
The Defendant’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 is therefore DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Jury Selection Process
The jury selection process in this case was designed to screen a sufficient number of
prospective jurors for the high-profile trial while also complying with the Southern District of
New York’s COVID-19 protocols and protecting the health and safety of prospective jurors,
court staff, and case participants during the unprecedented pandemic. Selection proceeded in
three stages: a written pre-screen questionnaire, one-on-one oral voir dire, and, finally, the
exercise of peremptory strikes. The Court developed the questionnaire and voir dire with input
from the parties. See Dkt. No. 367; see also Oct. 21, 2021 Tr., Dkt. No. 459. The questionnaire
was designed to pre-screen for “the major for-cause strike issues in the case”—that is, “the trial’s
length and schedule, a juror’s personal knowledge of the parties, [the] extent of a juror’s
awareness of publicity about the case and the defendant, and any bias due to publicity or as a
result of the nature of the charges.” Oct. 21, 2021 Tr. at 5. In-person voir dire would then focus
on appropriate follow-up questions based on questionnaire responses, additional questions more
appropriately asked orally, and background information to aid the parties’ exercise of informed
peremptory challenges. Id. at 7.
prospective jurors for the high-profile trial while also complying with the Southern District of
New York’s COVID-19 protocols and protecting the health and safety of prospective jurors,
court staff, and case participants during the unprecedented pandemic. Selection proceeded in
three stages: a written pre-screen questionnaire, one-on-one oral voir dire, and, finally, the
exercise of peremptory strikes. The Court developed the questionnaire and voir dire with input
from the parties. See Dkt. No. 367; see also Oct. 21, 2021 Tr., Dkt. No. 459. The questionnaire
was designed to pre-screen for “the major for-cause strike issues in the case”—that is, “the trial’s
length and schedule, a juror’s personal knowledge of the parties, [the] extent of a juror’s
awareness of publicity about the case and the defendant, and any bias due to publicity or as a
result of the nature of the charges.” Oct. 21, 2021 Tr. at 5. In-person voir dire would then focus
on appropriate follow-up questions based on questionnaire responses, additional questions more
appropriately asked orally, and background information to aid the parties’ exercise of informed
peremptory challenges. Id. at 7.
When prospective jurors arrived to complete the questionnaire, and when they returned
for voir dire, they watched videotaped instructions from this Court. The Court prepared those
instructions with the parties’ input. Dkt. Nos. 366, 404, 427. These instructions briefly
explained the jury selection process, explained the nature of the charges (using the same
language that the parties proposed for the jury questionnaire), and instructed jurors not to discuss
the case or consume any media about the case.
for voir dire, they watched videotaped instructions from this Court. The Court prepared those
instructions with the parties’ input. Dkt. Nos. 366, 404, 427. These instructions briefly
explained the jury selection process, explained the nature of the charges (using the same
language that the parties proposed for the jury questionnaire), and instructed jurors not to discuss
the case or consume any media about the case.
4
DOJ-OGR-00010327
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document