DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
753 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court document)
File Size:
753 KB
Summary
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, arguing for a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct. The defense argues that a second juror (besides Juror No. 50) failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, citing a New York Times article and Juror No. 50's statements as evidence. The document also argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to discovery regarding communications outside of deliberations, specifically referencing social media material.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal defense; arguing for discovery regarding juror misconduct.
|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Juror whose media statements revealed potential misconduct by a second juror; stated he closed accounts a week before...
|
| Second Juror | Juror |
Unnamed juror alleged to have disclosed they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse during deliberations.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The New York Times |
Newspaper that published an article containing evidence of juror discussions.
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit |
Referenced in case citation (United States v. Stewart).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Source of the document release (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00009898).
|
Relationships (2)
Juror No. 50 made a statement regarding the second juror's disclosure during deliberations.
Defense arguing against government's opposition to discovery.
Key Quotes (4)
"Where there is "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
Quote #1
"Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Discovery"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
Quote #2
"The government paints a parade of horrors to try to dissuade the Court from pursuing this second clear instance of a juror’s inaccurate voir dire statement"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
Quote #3
"It is also surprising that the government thinks that there will be a "high volume" of social media material during the "relevant time frame""Source
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,260 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 29 of 32
ability to establish that yet a second juror was biased by having been a victim of the very type of
crime at issue in this trial. The cases relied on by the government are inapposite as none reach
the issue of whether a juror was dishonest in response to voir dire questions regarding whether
they had been the victim of the same type of crime at issue. See Resp. at 38-39. Importantly, the
government cites only to cases where the only evidence that a juror had engaged in misconduct
was a news article to that effect. Here, there are two pieces of evidence: one, the New York
Times article, and two, Juror No. 50’s media statement that a second juror disclosed that they
were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Where there is "clear, strong, substantial and
incontrovertible evidence" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required. United States
v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2006).
crime at issue in this trial. The cases relied on by the government are inapposite as none reach
the issue of whether a juror was dishonest in response to voir dire questions regarding whether
they had been the victim of the same type of crime at issue. See Resp. at 38-39. Importantly, the
government cites only to cases where the only evidence that a juror had engaged in misconduct
was a news article to that effect. Here, there are two pieces of evidence: one, the New York
Times article, and two, Juror No. 50’s media statement that a second juror disclosed that they
were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Where there is "clear, strong, substantial and
incontrovertible evidence" of juror misconduct, a hearing on that issue is required. United States
v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2006).
The government paints a parade of horrors to try to dissuade the Court from pursuing this
second clear instance of a juror’s inaccurate voir dire statement on a critical issue in this case.
Resp. at 37. Yet simply asking the other 11 jurors one question, whether they were the victim of
childhood sexual abuse is not the intrusion the government suggests; the juror apparently felt
comfortable sharing that information both during deliberations and also to the New York Times.
second clear instance of a juror’s inaccurate voir dire statement on a critical issue in this case.
Resp. at 37. Yet simply asking the other 11 jurors one question, whether they were the victim of
childhood sexual abuse is not the intrusion the government suggests; the juror apparently felt
comfortable sharing that information both during deliberations and also to the New York Times.
4. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to Discovery
The government cites no authority for its request to foreclose discovery in advance of the
hearing, nor could they given that such discovery is often necessary to establish the very
misconduct at issue. The government’s complaints center on their view that the requested
discovery is either overbroad or violative of Rule 606(b). The government intentionally mis-
reads the defendant’s request. Obviously, Ms. Maxwell would be requesting communications
that occurred outside of deliberations. It is also surprising that the government thinks that there
will be a "high volume" of social media material during the "relevant time frame," i.e., between
when Juror No. 50 stated he had closed all of his accounts (a week before trial) and his
hearing, nor could they given that such discovery is often necessary to establish the very
misconduct at issue. The government’s complaints center on their view that the requested
discovery is either overbroad or violative of Rule 606(b). The government intentionally mis-
reads the defendant’s request. Obviously, Ms. Maxwell would be requesting communications
that occurred outside of deliberations. It is also surprising that the government thinks that there
will be a "high volume" of social media material during the "relevant time frame," i.e., between
when Juror No. 50 stated he had closed all of his accounts (a week before trial) and his
24
DOJ-OGR-00009898
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document