DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
545 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal opinion
File Size:
545 KB
Summary
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on Feb 24, 2022. It discusses the defendant's argument that Juror 50 displayed implied bias by allegedly lying, rejecting comparisons to the 'Daugerdas' case and the dismissal of Juror 55. The court concludes that the defendant failed to establish implied bias, with significant portions of the text regarding Juror 55 redacted.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Referenced as the party arguing implied bias (Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number 1:20-cr-00330).
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of the defense's allegation of lying and bias.
|
| Juror 55 | Juror |
A juror dismissed for cause, used as a comparison to Juror 50 by the defense.
|
| Judge Pauley | Judge |
Cited in the referenced case 'Daugerdas'.
|
Relationships (2)
Defense attempted to compare Juror 50 to Juror 55 regarding dismissal for cause.
Defendant alleges Juror 50 lied and is biased.
Key Quotes (4)
"the defendant also argues that bias should be implied because she alleges that Juror 50 has repeatedly lied."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
Quote #1
"the juror 'created a totally fictitious persona in her drive to get on the jury' and was 'a pathological liar who does not know the difference between truth and lie.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
Quote #2
"The record also does not support the defendant's attempt to compare Juror 50 to Juror 55, who was dismissed for cause"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
Quote #3
"In sum, the defendant has failed to establish implied bias."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,440 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 30 of 49
serve as jurors in such cases, the defendant would have cited case law that actually supports that
proposition.
proposition.
Finally, the defendant also argues that bias should be implied because she alleges that Juror
50 has repeatedly lied. (Def. Mem. at 35-36 (citing Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472)). As
discussed in greater detail above, the record does not support this, and, as a result, this is a far cry
from the extreme circumstances in Daugerdas, where Judge Pauley concluded after a hearing that
the juror "created a totally fictitious persona in her drive to get on the jury" and was "a pathological
liar who does not know the difference between truth and lie." Id. at 473, 475.
50 has repeatedly lied. (Def. Mem. at 35-36 (citing Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472)). As
discussed in greater detail above, the record does not support this, and, as a result, this is a far cry
from the extreme circumstances in Daugerdas, where Judge Pauley concluded after a hearing that
the juror "created a totally fictitious persona in her drive to get on the jury" and was "a pathological
liar who does not know the difference between truth and lie." Id. at 473, 475.
The record also does not support the defendant's attempt to compare Juror 50 to Juror 55,
who was dismissed for cause [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] As noted above, there is no evidence that Juror 50 [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]. Moreover, the defendant's analogy misunderstands the nature of the current inquiry, in
which the Court must consider the hypothetical question whether, if the juror had truthfully
answered the relevant question, the Court would have struck him for cause. See Stewart, 433 F.3d
at 304. [REDACTED] But here, in
a post-verdict posture, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
who was dismissed for cause [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] As noted above, there is no evidence that Juror 50 [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]. Moreover, the defendant's analogy misunderstands the nature of the current inquiry, in
which the Court must consider the hypothetical question whether, if the juror had truthfully
answered the relevant question, the Court would have struck him for cause. See Stewart, 433 F.3d
at 304. [REDACTED] But here, in
a post-verdict posture, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
In sum, the defendant has failed to establish implied bias.
28
DOJ-OGR-00009149
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document