DOJ-OGR-00005218.jpg
719 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion (page 13 of document 342)
File Size:
719 KB
Summary
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. It presents legal arguments regarding jury selection (voir dire), specifically arguing that defense attorneys should be allowed to question jurors directly due to the case's complexity and the high risk of prejudice from extensive pretrial publicity. The text cites legal precedents (United States v. Ible, United States v. Davis, Silverthorne v. United States) to support the necessity of thorough examination to ensure impartial jurors.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Attorneys / Counsel | Legal Defense |
Argued to have better knowledge of the case nuances than the Court and should conduct voir dire.
|
| The Court | Judiciary |
Refers to the judge/court conducting jury selection.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US District Court |
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell)
|
|
| Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in United States v. Ible and United States v. Davis
|
|
| Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited in Silverthorne v. United States
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00005218
|
Key Quotes (3)
"In this case, voir dire conducted solely by the Court will interfere with the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005218.jpg
Quote #1
"The possibility of prejudice in this case due to the extensive pretrial publicity is so great that specific voir dire questions by counsel are necessary."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005218.jpg
Quote #2
"“[W]here the nature of the publicity as a whole raised a significant possibility of prejudice, the cursory questioning by the court was not enough.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005218.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,148 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 13 of 17
into account the fact that it is the parties, rather than the Court, who
have a full grasp of the nuances and the strength and weaknesses of
the case... Experience indicates that in the majority of situations
questioning by counsel would be more likely to fulfill this need [for
information upon which to base the intelligent exercise of
peremptory challenges] than an exclusive examination in general
terms by the trial Court.
have a full grasp of the nuances and the strength and weaknesses of
the case... Experience indicates that in the majority of situations
questioning by counsel would be more likely to fulfill this need [for
information upon which to base the intelligent exercise of
peremptory challenges] than an exclusive examination in general
terms by the trial Court.
United States v. Ible, 630 F.2d 389, 395 (5th Cir. 1980).
In this case, voir dire conducted solely by the Court will interfere with the intelligent
exercise of peremptory challenges. Attorneys have been working on this case well over a year.
They are most likely to know the areas of questioning that must be explored to further uncover
the prejudices that are most pertinent to the evidence that will be presented at trial. They also act
with an awareness that they will have to base peremptory challenges on the juror's answers.
Permitting attorney-conducted voir dire in addition to Court voir dire will therefore maximize the
information obtained in voir dire.
exercise of peremptory challenges. Attorneys have been working on this case well over a year.
They are most likely to know the areas of questioning that must be explored to further uncover
the prejudices that are most pertinent to the evidence that will be presented at trial. They also act
with an awareness that they will have to base peremptory challenges on the juror's answers.
Permitting attorney-conducted voir dire in addition to Court voir dire will therefore maximize the
information obtained in voir dire.
B. The Extensive Pretrial Publicity Related to This Case Necessitates Attorney-
Conducted Voir Dire
Conducted Voir Dire
The possibility of prejudice in this case due to the extensive pretrial publicity is so great
that specific voir dire questions by counsel are necessary. In United States v. Davis, the Fifth
Circuit held that the district court erred in not undertaking a more thorough examination of panel
members exposed to publicity (“[W]here the nature of the publicity as a whole raised a
significant possibility of prejudice, the cursory questioning by the court was not enough.”). A
district court is required, under Davis, to determine what each juror may have heard or read and
how it may have affected his attitude toward the trial, and whether any juror’s impartiality had
been destroyed. Id; see also Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F.2d 627, 638 (9th Cir. 1968)
(“[I]n the absence of an examination designed to elicit answers which provide an objective basis
that specific voir dire questions by counsel are necessary. In United States v. Davis, the Fifth
Circuit held that the district court erred in not undertaking a more thorough examination of panel
members exposed to publicity (“[W]here the nature of the publicity as a whole raised a
significant possibility of prejudice, the cursory questioning by the court was not enough.”). A
district court is required, under Davis, to determine what each juror may have heard or read and
how it may have affected his attitude toward the trial, and whether any juror’s impartiality had
been destroyed. Id; see also Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F.2d 627, 638 (9th Cir. 1968)
(“[I]n the absence of an examination designed to elicit answers which provide an objective basis
12
DOJ-OGR-00005218
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document