DOJ-OGR-00021713.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page66 of 93

53

3. The Hearing

Following these reports, the Government filed a letter highlighting Juror 50’s public statements and requesting that the District Court conduct a hearing. (Dkt.568). After briefing, Judge Nathan ordered a limited hearing focused on Juror 50’s “potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information.” (A.240; SA350). Judge Nathan denied Maxwell’s request to directly question Juror 50, which was “committed to [her] sound discretion,” but permitted the parties to propose questions in advance of the hearing. (SA364 (quoting United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654, 667 (2d Cir. 1978)). The parties did so—and Maxwell submitted a letter renewing her request to question Juror 50 directly and proposing twenty-one pages of questions on topics including the nature and length of Juror 50’s sexual abuse, the nature of the sexual abuse experienced by any of Juror 50’s family or friends, his own employment responsibilities, the impact of his sexual abuse on his life and personal relationships, whether Juror 50 ever sought mental health counseling or spoke with a therapist, how he came to give media interviews, and whether he was attempting to be viewed as a “champion of victims of sexual abuse.” (Dkt.636).

The District Court held a hearing on March 8, 2022, at which Juror 50 testified under a grant of immunity. Juror 50 testified that his answers to three questions were not accurate: Questions 25 (whether he or a close associate had been a victim of a crime), 48 (whether he or a friend or family member had been a victim of

DOJ-OGR-00021713