DOJ-OGR-00009065.jpg
413 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal motion (motion for new trial)
File Size:
413 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 19, 2022, arguing that Ms. Maxwell's guilty verdict should be vacated. The text alleges that Juror No. 50 and at least one other juror were dishonest during the *voir dire* process, violating the defendant's Constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The defense requests a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing to examine all twelve jurors.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the trial; arguing for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Accused of dishonesty during voir dire and failing to honor obligations.
|
| Unnamed Juror | Juror |
Referenced as 'at least one other juror' who allegedly did not give truthful answers.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by 'this Court' and the case header format.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by the Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
January 19, 2022
Submission of legal motion arguing for a new trial.
Court
Ms. Maxwell's defense team
Relationships (1)
Maxwell claims Juror No. 50 was dishonest, denying her a fair trial.
Key Quotes (3)
"For its part, this Court expressed “confidence” that its voir dire process would “smoke out” a juror who was dishonest."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009065.jpg
Quote #1
"Unfortunately, we now know that Juror No. 50 (and at least one other juror) did not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009065.jpg
Quote #2
"Because Ms. Maxwell’s jury was not the fair and impartial one guaranteed her by the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new trial."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009065.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (930 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 613 Filed 02/24/22 Page 64 of 66
For its part, this Court expressed “confidence” that its voir dire process would
“smoke out” a juror who was dishonest. Ms. Maxwell relied on the Court’s process. And
the Court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled: that
potential jurors would carefully and honestly engage in voir dire.
“smoke out” a juror who was dishonest. Ms. Maxwell relied on the Court’s process. And
the Court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled: that
potential jurors would carefully and honestly engage in voir dire.
Unfortunately, we now know that Juror No. 50 (and at least one other juror) did
not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.” Ex. 1, p 3. They are no longer
entitled to the presumption of honesty.
not honor their obligations to give “only truthful answers.” Ex. 1, p 3. They are no longer
entitled to the presumption of honesty.
Because Ms. Maxwell’s jury was not the fair and impartial one guaranteed her by
the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new
trial. In the alternative, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and examine all
twelve jurors.
the United States Constitution, this Court should vacate the jury’s verdict and order a new
trial. In the alternative, this Court should hold an evidentiary hearing and examine all
twelve jurors.
Dated: January 19, 2022
57
DOJ-OGR-00009065
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document