DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg
740 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
8
Organizations
11
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief
File Size:
740 KB
Summary
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 362) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 20, 2021. The text argues for public access to the jury selection process (voir dire) and juror questionnaires, citing numerous legal precedents including United States v. Shkreli and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court. It asserts that First Amendment rights require these proceedings and documents to be presumptively open to the press and public.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Shkreli | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Shkreli regarding press coverage of voir dire.
|
| Avenatti | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Avenatti regarding fairness of trials.
|
| King | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. King regarding juror questionnaires.
|
| Paulson | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in Forum Commc’ns Co. v. Paulson.
|
| Bond | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in Ohio ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Bond.
|
| Bonds | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Bonds.
|
| McDade | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. McDade.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Document bears DOJ-OGR Bates stamp.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Mentioned as holding that First Amendment requires open voir dire.
|
|
| Press-Enterprise Co. |
Plaintiff in cited case.
|
|
| The Washington Post |
Petitioner in cited case.
|
|
| South Carolina Press Ass’n |
Petitioner in cited case.
|
|
| Stephens Media, LLC |
Plaintiff in cited case.
|
|
| Forum Commc’ns Co. |
Plaintiff in cited case.
|
|
| Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. |
Plaintiff in cited case.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (11)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Eastern District of New York (legal jurisdiction)
|
|
|
Southern District of New York (legal jurisdiction)
|
|
|
Location related to Press-Enter. Co. case
|
|
|
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
|
District of Columbia
|
|
|
State jurisdiction (Nev.)
|
|
|
State jurisdiction (N.D.)
|
|
|
State jurisdiction
|
|
|
Northern District of California
|
|
|
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
|
Key Quotes (3)
"Voir dire is a critical stage of criminal proceedings, and the public interest in favor of access to voir dire is correspondingly weighty."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror questionnaires, which are used to facilitate and expedite the jury selection process, are subject to the same presumption of openness as that which attaches to voir dire generally."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg
Quote #2
"Press coverage of voir dire, no less than coverage of opening statements or the cross examination of a key witness, contributes to the fairness of trials."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005270.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,174 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 362 Filed 10/20/21 Page 2 of 4
with benefits to both the defendant and to society as a whole.”).
Voir dire is a critical stage of criminal proceedings, and the public interest in favor of access
to voir dire is correspondingly weighty. United States v. Shkreli, 260 F. Supp. 3d 257, 259–60
(E.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Press coverage of voir dire, no less than coverage of opening statements or the
cross examination of a key witness, contributes to the fairness of trials.”); accord United States v.
Avenatti, 2021 WL 1819679, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021). Recognizing that interest, the
Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment requires the voir dire process be presumptively
open to the press and public. Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty., 464
U.S. 501, 510 (1984).
to voir dire is correspondingly weighty. United States v. Shkreli, 260 F. Supp. 3d 257, 259–60
(E.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Press coverage of voir dire, no less than coverage of opening statements or the
cross examination of a key witness, contributes to the fairness of trials.”); accord United States v.
Avenatti, 2021 WL 1819679, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021). Recognizing that interest, the
Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment requires the voir dire process be presumptively
open to the press and public. Press-Enter. Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, Riverside Cty., 464
U.S. 501, 510 (1984).
Juror questionnaires, which are used to facilitate and expedite the jury selection process,
are subject to the same presumption of openness as that which attaches to voir dire generally. See
United States v. King, 140 F.3d 76, 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (including juror questionnaires when
analyzing whether limited closure of voir dire violated public’s right of access); see also Order, In
re The Washington Post, No. 15-1293 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015) (stating that “the public enjoys a
presumptive right of access to voir dire proceedings, including voir dire questionnaires”); In re
Access to Jury Questionnaires, 37 A.3d 879, 886 (D.C. 2012) (“Every court that has decided the
issue has treated jury questionnaires as part of the voir dire process and thus subject to the
presumption of public access.”) (citing In re South Carolina Press Ass’n, 946 F.2d 1037, 1041 (4th
Cir. 1991), and collecting other cases)); Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court,
221 P.3d 1240, 1245 (Nev. 2009); Forum Commc’ns Co. v. Paulson, 752 N.W.2d 177, 182–83
(N.D. 2008); Ohio ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Bond, 781 N.E.2d 180, 187–89 (Ohio
2002); United States v. Bonds, No. C 07-00732 SI, 2011 WL 902207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14,
2011); United States v. McDade, 929 F. Supp. 815, 817 n.4 (E.D. Pa. 1996); In re Washington
are subject to the same presumption of openness as that which attaches to voir dire generally. See
United States v. King, 140 F.3d 76, 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (including juror questionnaires when
analyzing whether limited closure of voir dire violated public’s right of access); see also Order, In
re The Washington Post, No. 15-1293 (4th Cir. Apr. 27, 2015) (stating that “the public enjoys a
presumptive right of access to voir dire proceedings, including voir dire questionnaires”); In re
Access to Jury Questionnaires, 37 A.3d 879, 886 (D.C. 2012) (“Every court that has decided the
issue has treated jury questionnaires as part of the voir dire process and thus subject to the
presumption of public access.”) (citing In re South Carolina Press Ass’n, 946 F.2d 1037, 1041 (4th
Cir. 1991), and collecting other cases)); Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court,
221 P.3d 1240, 1245 (Nev. 2009); Forum Commc’ns Co. v. Paulson, 752 N.W.2d 177, 182–83
(N.D. 2008); Ohio ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ’g Co. v. Bond, 781 N.E.2d 180, 187–89 (Ohio
2002); United States v. Bonds, No. C 07-00732 SI, 2011 WL 902207, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14,
2011); United States v. McDade, 929 F. Supp. 815, 817 n.4 (E.D. Pa. 1996); In re Washington
2
DOJ-OGR-00005270
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document