DOJ-OGR-00009801.jpg
606 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal memorandum (government opposition to motion for new trial)
File Size:
606 KB
Summary
This document is the preliminary statement of a memorandum filed by the United States Government on March 11, 2022, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The Government argues that Maxwell has failed to meet the heavy burden required to prove juror misconduct during voir dire. The text cites legal precedents to support the finality of trials and argues the motion should be denied.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the criminal case and the motion for a new trial.
|
| AJN | Judge (initials) |
Appears in case number S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), referring to Judge Alison J. Nathan.
|
| Juror | Generic Participant |
Mentioned in legal argument regarding 'voir dire' and potential misconduct.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States District Court Southern District of New York |
Venue where the document was filed.
|
|
| United States of America |
The Government party opposing the motion.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, inferred from Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-03-11
Filing of Government's memorandum in opposition to defendant's motion for a new trial.
SDNY Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court.
|
Relationships (1)
Case caption: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -v.- GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Key Quotes (2)
"A defendant 'is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009801.jpg
Quote #1
"On the present record, the defendant has not come close to establishing that the extraordinary remedy of a new trial is warranted."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009801.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,728 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 49
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
-v.- : S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
-v.- : S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
GHISLAINE MAXWELL,
:
Defendant.
:
------------------------------------------------------------x
:
Defendant.
:
------------------------------------------------------------x
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s
motion for a new trial, dated January 19, 2022 (the “Defense Motion”).
motion for a new trial, dated January 19, 2022 (the “Defense Motion”).
A defendant “is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.”
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984) (quotations and
citations omitted). “A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and
it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory
challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have
obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.” Id. at 555. In keeping with these principles, a
defendant seeking a new trial based on a juror’s statements during voir dire faces the heavy burden
of establishing both that the juror deliberately lied, and that the juror otherwise would have been
struck for cause. Id. at 556; United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1994). On the
present record, the defendant has not come close to establishing that the extraordinary remedy of
a new trial is warranted.
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984) (quotations and
citations omitted). “A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and
it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory
challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have
obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.” Id. at 555. In keeping with these principles, a
defendant seeking a new trial based on a juror’s statements during voir dire faces the heavy burden
of establishing both that the juror deliberately lied, and that the juror otherwise would have been
struck for cause. Id. at 556; United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1994). On the
present record, the defendant has not come close to establishing that the extraordinary remedy of
a new trial is warranted.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny the defendant’s motion based on the
present record. The Court should further deny the defendant’s alternative requests for extensive
present record. The Court should further deny the defendant’s alternative requests for extensive
1
DOJ-OGR-00009801
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document