DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
715 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court order/opinion)
File Size:
715 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses a motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50' allegedly failing to disclose information (specifically regarding childhood sexual abuse) during voir dire. The text outlines the legal standards for such a motion, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*.
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case number structure and references to Federal Rules.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Referenced regarding the McDonough decision.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, referenced in case citations.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Referenced in footer stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"“[u]pon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
Quote #1
"“a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
Quote #2
"During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
Quote #3
"The parties dispute certain contours of the McDonough test, including whether it requires a deliberately false answer."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,273 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 21
sexually abused as a child” as a basis for a broader hearing beyond inquiry into Juror 50.
Maxwell Br. at 21, 49.
II. Motion for a new trial on the current record
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that “[u]pon the defendant’s motion, the
court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 33(a). The parties agree that a defendant’s Rule 33 motion premised on a juror’s
alleged nondisclosure during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v.
Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). Maxwell Br. at 22–28; Gov. Br. at 11. In McDonough, the
Supreme Court held that to obtain a new trial on the basis of juror nondisclosure during voir dire,
“a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir
dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a
challenge for cause.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556; see also United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d
32, 51 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 815–16 (2d Cir. 1994); United States
v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).3
court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 33(a). The parties agree that a defendant’s Rule 33 motion premised on a juror’s
alleged nondisclosure during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v.
Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). Maxwell Br. at 22–28; Gov. Br. at 11. In McDonough, the
Supreme Court held that to obtain a new trial on the basis of juror nondisclosure during voir dire,
“a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir
dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a
challenge for cause.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556; see also United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d
32, 51 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 815–16 (2d Cir. 1994); United States
v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).3
The McDonough inquiry is restricted by Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which states:
During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not
testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s
deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or
any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court
may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these
matters.
testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s
deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or
any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court
may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these
matters.
Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1).
________________________________
3 The parties dispute certain contours of the McDonough test, including whether it requires a deliberately false
answer. But at a minimum, the parties agree that the deliberateness of a juror’s incorrect answer is relevant to this
inquiry. Maxwell Reply at 13–14. Because, as explained below, the Court does not now resolve at this juncture
whether Juror 50’s answers on the questionnaire and voir dire merit a new trial, it need not and does not resolve
those disputes pre-hearing.
3 The parties dispute certain contours of the McDonough test, including whether it requires a deliberately false
answer. But at a minimum, the parties agree that the deliberateness of a juror’s incorrect answer is relevant to this
inquiry. Maxwell Reply at 13–14. Because, as explained below, the Court does not now resolve at this juncture
whether Juror 50’s answers on the questionnaire and voir dire merit a new trial, it need not and does not resolve
those disputes pre-hearing.
4
DOJ-OGR-00009545
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document