DOJ-OGR-00008988.jpg
610 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
610 KB
Summary
This page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that 'Juror 50' must be allowed to review their own Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript. The filing asserts this review is necessary for the juror to address questions regarding their truthfulness about prior sexual abuse, in compliance with a January 5, 2022 order by Judge Nathan. It cites legal precedents regarding third-party intervention and privilege.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of an inquiry regarding truthfulness on jury questionnaire and prior sexual abuse history.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Issued an order on January 5th requiring compliance regarding the inquiry into Juror 50.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by S.D.N.Y. citation and case number format.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-02-24
Filing of Document 609 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York (cited in legal precedent and jurisdiction of the case).
|
Relationships (1)
Juror 50 must comply with Judge Nathan's January 5th order.
Key Quotes (3)
"Juror 50 needs to know whether or not the question(s) related to prior sexual abuse were answered by him correctly on his Jury Questionnaire"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008988.jpg
Quote #1
"A third-party’s reasonable assertion of privilege with respect to documents to be produced in a criminal action is sufficient grounds on which to grant the third-party’s motion to intervene"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008988.jpg
Quote #2
"It is necessary for Juror 50 to review his answers to the Jury Questionnaire and the transcript of his voir dire testimony"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008988.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,671 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 609 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 13
intervention in criminal cases by third parties who are seeking to prevent the wide dissemination
of confidential or privileged information. United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir.
1979); United States v. Crawford, 735 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Martoma, 962
F. Supp. 2d 602, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “A third-party’s reasonable assertion of privilege with
respect to documents to be produced in a criminal action is sufficient grounds on which to grant
the third-party’s motion to intervene and to consider the merits of that party’s application.”
Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 605-06.
of confidential or privileged information. United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir.
1979); United States v. Crawford, 735 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Martoma, 962
F. Supp. 2d 602, 605-06 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “A third-party’s reasonable assertion of privilege with
respect to documents to be produced in a criminal action is sufficient grounds on which to grant
the third-party’s motion to intervene and to consider the merits of that party’s application.”
Martoma, 962 F. Supp. 2d at 605-06.
B. Juror 50’s Jury Questionnaire should be released to Counsel, but
otherwise remain under seal, to provide Juror 50 with a full and fair
opportunity to present his position to this Court
otherwise remain under seal, to provide Juror 50 with a full and fair
opportunity to present his position to this Court
1. A copy of the Jury Questionnaire is necessary to comply with
Judge Nathan’s January 5th order
Judge Nathan’s January 5th order
It is necessary for Juror 50 to review his answers to the Jury Questionnaire and the
transcript of his voir dire testimony, before he is able to comply with Judge Nathan’s order and
address the “appropriateness of an inquiry”, into his conduct and his truthfulness of his responses
on the Jury Questionnaire. See Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330. It should go without saying
that Juror 50 needs to know whether or not the question(s) related to prior sexual abuse were
answered by him correctly on his Jury Questionnaire to help determine what an appropriate
inquiry would entail, so that the same would also Juror 50’s privacy rights and legitimate
interests related to these matters.
transcript of his voir dire testimony, before he is able to comply with Judge Nathan’s order and
address the “appropriateness of an inquiry”, into his conduct and his truthfulness of his responses
on the Jury Questionnaire. See Order at 1. Jan. 5, 2022. 20-CR-330. It should go without saying
that Juror 50 needs to know whether or not the question(s) related to prior sexual abuse were
answered by him correctly on his Jury Questionnaire to help determine what an appropriate
inquiry would entail, so that the same would also Juror 50’s privacy rights and legitimate
interests related to these matters.
9
DOJ-OGR-00008988
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document