DOJ-OGR-00020963.jpg
632 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion
File Size:
632 KB
Summary
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on April 1, 2022, addressing arguments by the Defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) regarding Juror 50. The Court analyzes Juror 50's failure to disclose sexual abuse by a stepbrother on his jury questionnaire (Questions 48 and 49). The Court finds Juror 50's explanation—that he skimmed the questionnaire and did not consider his abuser to be 'family' at the time—to be credible and not an act of deliberate concealment.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a post-trial hearing regarding potential misconduct/non-disclosure on a juror questionnaire.
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Likely Ghislaine Maxwell (referenced via 'Maxwell Post-Hearing Br.'), arguing that Juror 50 was inconsistent.
|
| The Court | Judge/Judicial Body |
Evaluating the credibility of Juror 50's testimony.
|
| Stepbrother | Family Member |
Person who sexually abused Juror 50, but whom Juror 50 did not consider family at the time.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| US District Court |
Implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice - Office of Government Relations (Bates stamp)
|
Relationships (2)
Juror stated he was abused by him but did not consider him family, though acknowledged the legal relation.
Defendant argues Juror 50 was inconsistent and deliberately concealed information.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020963.jpg
Quote #1
"he 'didn’t even consider . . . at all' whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question 49 as he 'flew through' the questionnaire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020963.jpg
Quote #2
"it would have been yes” because “by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020963.jpg
Quote #3
"never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they lived with us for a few years."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020963.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,205 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page137 of 221
A-337
A-337
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 20 of 40
yes friend or family, or no.” Id. at 15, 21. Consistent with his explanation that he skimmed the
questionnaire, he testified that he “did not pick up on” that pattern when filling out the
questionnaire, id. at 15, and read only “the friend or family” and “missed that ‘have you,’ and
then ‘yes self’ while reading,” Question 48, id. at 21. And when asked a follow-up question,
Juror 50 said he was not “surprised” at the time, but only surprised “thinking now” that the
questionnaire had asked about the sexual abuse history of friends and family but not about a
juror’s own sexual abuse history. Id. at 21–22. The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each
of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible.
questionnaire, he testified that he “did not pick up on” that pattern when filling out the
questionnaire, id. at 15, and read only “the friend or family” and “missed that ‘have you,’ and
then ‘yes self’ while reading,” Question 48, id. at 21. And when asked a follow-up question,
Juror 50 said he was not “surprised” at the time, but only surprised “thinking now” that the
questionnaire had asked about the sexual abuse history of friends and family but not about a
juror’s own sexual abuse history. Id. at 21–22. The Court finds that Juror 50’s answers to each
of these lines of questioning were reasonable and credible.
Third, the Defendant argues that, as to Question 49, Juror 50 was inconsistent in first
stating that he was sexually abused by “a family member, who is no longer part of the family,”
but then stating that he “never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they
lived with us for a few years.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9–10 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 8, 11).
The Court acknowledges the tension between these two statements, but does not agree that
tension suggests Juror 50 deliberately concealed his stepbrother’s abuse. Juror 50’s explanation
of his answer to Question 49 proceeded in three stages. He clarified, first, that on November 4,
he “didn’t even consider . . . at all” whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question
49 as he “flew through” the questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 11–12. At the hearing, he initially
stated that “No” was an accurate answer because, as the Defendant notes, he “never considered”
the stepbrother to be a member of his family. Id. And finally, when asked whether, “[a]s [he]
sit[s] here now,” what his answer to Question 49 would be, Juror 50 said “it would have been
yes” because “by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother.” Id. at 12–13. In short, it
was only after Juror 50 was made to reflect on the question and its answer that he reached an
stating that he was sexually abused by “a family member, who is no longer part of the family,”
but then stating that he “never considered [the stepbrother] part of [his] family even when they
lived with us for a few years.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 9–10 (quoting Hearing Tr. at 8, 11).
The Court acknowledges the tension between these two statements, but does not agree that
tension suggests Juror 50 deliberately concealed his stepbrother’s abuse. Juror 50’s explanation
of his answer to Question 49 proceeded in three stages. He clarified, first, that on November 4,
he “didn’t even consider . . . at all” whether his stepbrother’s conduct was responsive to Question
49 as he “flew through” the questionnaire. Hearing Tr. at 11–12. At the hearing, he initially
stated that “No” was an accurate answer because, as the Defendant notes, he “never considered”
the stepbrother to be a member of his family. Id. And finally, when asked whether, “[a]s [he]
sit[s] here now,” what his answer to Question 49 would be, Juror 50 said “it would have been
yes” because “by law, by marriage, that person was [his] stepbrother.” Id. at 12–13. In short, it
was only after Juror 50 was made to reflect on the question and its answer that he reached an
20
DOJ-OGR-00020963
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document