DOJ-OGR-00010330.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This document is page 7 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated April 1, 2022, detailing the jury selection process for 'Juror 50'. It outlines that Juror 50 completed a questionnaire on November 4, 2021, answering 'No' to questions 25, 48, and 49 regarding prior knowledge or conflicts, and subsequently underwent in-person voir dire on November 16, 2021. During questioning, Juror 50 admitted to seeing a CNN article about the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein but affirmed he could decide the case impartially based solely on evidence.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Prospective Juror |
Subject of the section; completed questionnaire and underwent voir dire.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Referenced regarding the juror's prior knowledge (Implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number).
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate of Defendant |
Mentioned during voir dire regarding the juror's prior knowledge of him.
|
Timeline (4 events)
November 29, 2021
Scheduled date for parties' exercise of peremptory strikes.
Court
Qualified Jurors
Parties
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the voir dire and questioning.
|
Relationships (2)
Court asked Juror 50 about his prior knowledge of the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein.
Court asked Juror 50 about his prior knowledge of the Defendant.
Key Quotes (3)
"Covid-related space limitations, to streamline the process in light of a likelihood of a high number of sidebars which would otherwise be required, and to ensure that the comments of one juror [did] not infect the pool."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010330.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror 50 explained that he had seen a news article on CNN, but he could “absolutely” decide the case “based on the facts and evidence, or lack of evidence, here presented in court.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010330.jpg
Quote #2
"indicating that he had “no doubt” as to his ability to put his prior knowledge aside"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010330.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,113 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 7 of 40
As a result of this process, 231 prospective jurors were selected to return for in-person
questioning for voir dire. Id. at 4. At this second stage of selection, the Court questioned
prospective jurors one-on-one due to “Covid-related space limitations, to streamline the process
in light of a likelihood of a high number of sidebars which would otherwise be required, and to
ensure that the comments of one juror [did] not infect the pool.” Id. at 8. If a prospective juror
was not struck for cause, the Court instructed the now-qualified juror to return on the morning of
November 29, 2021, for the parties’ exercise of peremptory strikes.
questioning for voir dire. Id. at 4. At this second stage of selection, the Court questioned
prospective jurors one-on-one due to “Covid-related space limitations, to streamline the process
in light of a likelihood of a high number of sidebars which would otherwise be required, and to
ensure that the comments of one juror [did] not infect the pool.” Id. at 8. If a prospective juror
was not struck for cause, the Court instructed the now-qualified juror to return on the morning of
November 29, 2021, for the parties’ exercise of peremptory strikes.
B. Juror 50’s jury selection process
Juror 50 completed the questionnaire on the morning of November 4, 2021—the first
questionnaire session. Mar. 8, 2022 Hearing Tr. at 7. In his questionnaire, Juror 50 checked
“No” for Question 25. Hearing Exhibit 1 at 13, Dkt. No. 638 (hereinafter “Questionnaire”). He
left Questions 25a and 25b blank. For Question 48, he checked the box “No.” Id. at 24. He left
Questions 48a, 48b, and 48c blank. Finally, Juror 50 checked “No” for Question 49. Id. at 25.
He left Questions 49a, 49b, and 49c blank.
questionnaire session. Mar. 8, 2022 Hearing Tr. at 7. In his questionnaire, Juror 50 checked
“No” for Question 25. Hearing Exhibit 1 at 13, Dkt. No. 638 (hereinafter “Questionnaire”). He
left Questions 25a and 25b blank. For Question 48, he checked the box “No.” Id. at 24. He left
Questions 48a, 48b, and 48c blank. Finally, Juror 50 checked “No” for Question 49. Id. at 25.
He left Questions 49a, 49b, and 49c blank.
Juror 50 was among the prospective jurors the parties agreed should proceed to voir dire.
He returned for in-person questioning on November 16, 2021. Consistent with other prospective
jurors who had answered “No” to Questions 25, 48, and 49, the Court did not ask Juror 50 any
follow-up questions on these issues. However, the Court did ask Juror 50 about his background,
whether he would follow the Court’s instructions, and his prior knowledge of the Defendant and
Jeffrey Epstein, among other questions. Juror 50 explained that he had seen a news article on
CNN, but he could “absolutely” decide the case “based on the facts and evidence, or lack of
evidence, here presented in court.” Nov. 16, 2021 Voir Dire Tr. at 130; see also id. at 131
(indicating that he had “no doubt” as to his ability to put his prior knowledge aside). In closing,
He returned for in-person questioning on November 16, 2021. Consistent with other prospective
jurors who had answered “No” to Questions 25, 48, and 49, the Court did not ask Juror 50 any
follow-up questions on these issues. However, the Court did ask Juror 50 about his background,
whether he would follow the Court’s instructions, and his prior knowledge of the Defendant and
Jeffrey Epstein, among other questions. Juror 50 explained that he had seen a news article on
CNN, but he could “absolutely” decide the case “based on the facts and evidence, or lack of
evidence, here presented in court.” Nov. 16, 2021 Voir Dire Tr. at 130; see also id. at 131
(indicating that he had “no doubt” as to his ability to put his prior knowledge aside). In closing,
7
DOJ-OGR-00010330
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document