DOJ-OGR-00005209.jpg
744 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (memorandum of law/argument regarding jury selection)
File Size:
744 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. It presents legal arguments justifying the use of jury questionnaires to screen for bias (actual, implied, and inferred) during voir dire. The text cites precedents from the Second Circuit and references other high-profile cases involving extensive pretrial publicity, such as those of Jeffrey Skilling (Enron), R. Kelly, Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos), and Keith Rainier (Nexium), to support the argument.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Skilling | Former Enron Executive |
Cited in case law regarding the use of jury questionnaires in high-profile trials.
|
| Robert Sylvester Kelly | Defendant |
Cited in case law (R. Kelly case) regarding jury questionnaires.
|
| Elizabeth Holmes | Defendant |
Cited in case law (Theranos case) regarding jury questionnaires.
|
| Keith Rainier | Defendant |
Cited in case law (Nexium case) regarding jury questionnaires.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Cited for legal definitions of juror partiality.
|
|
| Enron |
Mentioned in relation to Jeffrey Skilling's trial.
|
|
| EDNY |
Venue for R. Kelly and Keith Rainier cases.
|
|
| NDCA |
Venue for Elizabeth Holmes case.
|
|
| DOJ |
Indicated by the footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Key Quotes (4)
"Actual bias is 'bias in fact,' generally evidenced by 'express proof,' such as a juror’s admission to 'a state of mind prejudicial to a party’s interest.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005209.jpg
Quote #1
"Implied bias is 'bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law' from circumstances in which an average person in the position of the prospective juror would be prejudiced."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005209.jpg
Quote #2
"Voir dire plays an important role in ensuring that juries are fair and impartial by allowing the Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005209.jpg
Quote #3
"district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in conducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button issues."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005209.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,328 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 4 of 17
ARGUMENT
I. THE APPLICABLE LAW
A prospective juror may be excused for cause based on many forms of bias or partiality.
As the Second Circuit has explained, juror partiality can be actual, implied, or inferred:
As the Second Circuit has explained, juror partiality can be actual, implied, or inferred:
Actual bias is “bias in fact,” generally evidenced by “express proof,”
such as a juror’s admission to “a state of mind prejudicial to a party’s
interest.” Implied bias is “bias conclusively presumed as a matter of
law” from circumstances in which an average person in the position
of the prospective juror would be prejudiced. Inferred bias exists
“when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality
sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion
to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory
a presumption of bias.”
such as a juror’s admission to “a state of mind prejudicial to a party’s
interest.” Implied bias is “bias conclusively presumed as a matter of
law” from circumstances in which an average person in the position
of the prospective juror would be prejudiced. Inferred bias exists
“when a juror discloses a fact that bespeaks a risk of partiality
sufficiently significant to warrant granting the trial judge discretion
to excuse the juror for cause, but not so great as to make mandatory
a presumption of bias.”
United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 301 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Haynes,
398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 45 (2d Cir. 1997)).
All types of bias can properly form the basis to excuse a juror for cause. See id. Thus, the jury
selection process should screen for each type. See id.
398 F.2d 980, 984 (2d Cir. 1968) and United States v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 45 (2d Cir. 1997)).
All types of bias can properly form the basis to excuse a juror for cause. See id. Thus, the jury
selection process should screen for each type. See id.
Voir dire plays an important role in ensuring that juries are fair and impartial by allowing
the Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias. It serves to protect the
Constitutional right of a fair trial “by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the
part of potential jurors.” United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). For these
reasons, district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in
conducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button
issues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district
court’s use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v.
Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) (“R. Kelly case”); United States v. Elizabeth
Holmes, 18 Cr. 258 (EJD) (NDCA) (“Theranos case”); United States v. Keith Rainier, 18 Cr. 204
(NGG) (EDNY) (“Nexium case”).
the Court and parties to uncover unfair actual, implied, or inferred bias. It serves to protect the
Constitutional right of a fair trial “by exposing possible biases, both known and unknown, on the
part of potential jurors.” United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). For these
reasons, district courts routinely use their broad discretion to issue written jury questionnaires in
conducting voir dire, particularly in cases involving extensive pretrial publicity or hot-button
issues. See, e.g., Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2919 (2010) (approving district
court’s use of questionnaire in trial of former Enron executive, Jeffrey Skilling); United States v.
Robert Sylvester Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD) (EDNY) (“R. Kelly case”); United States v. Elizabeth
Holmes, 18 Cr. 258 (EJD) (NDCA) (“Theranos case”); United States v. Keith Rainier, 18 Cr. 204
(NGG) (EDNY) (“Nexium case”).
3
DOJ-OGR-00005209
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document