DOJ-OGR-00009745.jpg
745 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (motion/memorandum of law)
File Size:
745 KB
Summary
This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because 'Juror 50' made material misstatements by failing to disclose they were a victim of sexual abuse and misrepresenting their social media status. The defense contends that had this information been known, they would have exercised a peremptory challenge to remove Juror 50.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Referred to as Ms. Maxwell; arguing that her right to a fair trial was denied due to juror misconduct.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Accused of material misstatements regarding sexual abuse history and social media status.
|
| Second unidentified juror | Juror |
Mentioned in the section header as having made material misstatements.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Courts |
Mentioned in legal citation regarding peremptory challenges.
|
|
| Department of Justice |
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Relationships (1)
Maxwell's defense team argues Juror 50's presence on the jury denied her a fair trial due to non-disclosure of abuse history.
Key Quotes (3)
"Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009745.jpg
Quote #1
"Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009745.jpg
Quote #2
"Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009745.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,016 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 53 of 66
E. Juror 50's material misstatements (and those of the second unidentified juror) prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges, denying her a fair trial.
Proper voir dire plays a vital role in assuring a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who may not be able impartially serve cannot be fulfilled. “Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges where provided by statute or rule, as it is in the federal courts.” Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 (1981) (citation omitted).
The role of peremptory challenges in a criminal trial cannot be overstated:
Peremptory challenges have been an integral aspect of criminal trial procedure for over six hundred years and continue to be universally employed throughout the country. The underlying thesis is that, with the exception of challenges for cause, the suitability of a particular juror is counsel's decision and not the court's. Consistent with that thesis and subject to constitutional strictures, a peremptory challenge can rest on a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263, 650 A.2d 1012, 1019 (App. Div. 1994) (cleaned up).
Fed. R. Crim. P. 24 entitles a number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors. Here, Ms. Maxwell exercised all of her peremptory challenges and, whether for cause or peremptory, would not have knowing allowed a juror who: (1) claimed to be a victim of sexual abuse; or (2) neglected to disclose that the juror had been a victim of sexual abuse; (3) misrepresented the status of the juror’s social media to remain on the jury. Had Juror 50 disclosed any of these issues, Ms. Maxwell would have used a peremptory challenge against this juror and not as to any of the other remaining jurors.
46
DOJ-OGR-00009745
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document