DOJ-OGR-00009707.jpg
584 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion
File Size:
584 KB
Summary
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It argues that Juror No. 50 was dishonest about deleting his Instagram account and his ability to be impartial, noting he posted about the trial post-verdict. The defense explains they did not ask follow-up questions during voir dire because the juror denied bias, contrasting this with other jurors who disclosed abuse histories.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Subject of misconduct allegations regarding Instagram usage and voir dire honesty
|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned via 'Ms. Maxwell’s attorneys'
|
| Juror No. 55 | Juror |
Cited as a contrast to Juror 50; struck for cause
|
| Judge PAE (Paul A. Engelmayer) | Judge |
Implied by case number suffix PAE and references to 'The Court'
|
Timeline (4 events)
Relationships (2)
Court questioned Juror 50 during voir dire
Juror 50 served on the jury for Maxwell's case
Key Quotes (4)
"It also appears that Juror No. 50 did not delete his Instagram account, despite what he told the Court"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009707.jpg
Quote #1
"Juror No. 50 said, 'no.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009707.jpg
Quote #2
"Juror No. 50 responded, 'I do not.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009707.jpg
Quote #3
"Ms. Maxwell’s attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009707.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,498 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 66
It also appears that Juror No. 50 did not delete his Instagram account, despite what
he told the Court, since he posted about his jury service after the verdict was returned.
he told the Court, since he posted about his jury service after the verdict was returned.
At the end of the very brief voir dire examination, the Court asked Juror No. 50 if
he had “[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to” be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50
said, “no.” Id. The Court concluded: “Other than what I have asked you, do you have any
reason to think that you can’t be fair and impartial here?” Id. Juror No. 50 responded, “I
do not.” Id.
he had “[a]ny doubt about [his] ability to” be fair to both sides. Id. at 134. Juror No. 50
said, “no.” Id. The Court concluded: “Other than what I have asked you, do you have any
reason to think that you can’t be fair and impartial here?” Id. Juror No. 50 responded, “I
do not.” Id.
The Court inquired whether the parties had any follow-up questions. Because
Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers
to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and
impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms.
Maxwell’s attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions.
Juror No. 50 denied any bias or inability to be fair and impartial, and because his answers
to the questionnaire did not raise any red flags about his ability to serve as a fair and
impartial juror in a case involving alleged sexual assault and sexual abuse, Ms.
Maxwell’s attorneys did not propose any follow-up questions.
The lack of follow-up questions for Juror No. 50 contrasts with other jurors who
honestly disclosed their history as victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual
harassment. E.g., TR 11/16/2021, pp 18-19, [REDACTED], 293; TR 11/17/2021, pp
[REDACTED], 436-37, 532, 587-88; TR 11/18/2021, pp 635.
honestly disclosed their history as victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, or sexual
harassment. E.g., TR 11/16/2021, pp 18-19, [REDACTED], 293; TR 11/17/2021, pp
[REDACTED], 436-37, 532, 587-88; TR 11/18/2021, pp 635.
Also, the lack of follow-up questions put to Juror No. 50 contrasts with Juror No.
55, whom the Court struck for cause [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
55, whom the Court struck for cause [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
8
DOJ-OGR-00009707
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document