DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
736 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum
File Size:
736 KB
Summary
This document is page 37 of a legal filing (Doc 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that the Court should have further probed 'Juror 50' regarding his ability to set aside past traumatic experiences and fairly evaluate the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus. The filing cites voir dire transcripts from November 16, 2021, where Juror 50 affirmed his ability to be impartial, and references case law (*United States v. Pirk*, *United States v. Barnes*) regarding the limited purpose of voir dire.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a dispute regarding impartiality and failure to disclose past traumatic experiences.
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE); arguing that Juror 50 should have been probed further.
|
| Dr. Loftus | Witness (Expert) |
Defense expert witness on memory; defendant argues Juror 50 could not fairly evaluate her testimony.
|
| The Court | Judicial Body |
Conducted voir dire and is managing the post-trial motions.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government |
Party arguing that they met the burden of proof and that voir dire was sufficient.
|
|
| United States District Court (W.D.N.Y.) |
Cited in case law (United States v. Pirk).
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2d Cir.) |
Cited in case law (United States v. Barnes).
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (indicated by Bates stamp).
|
Relationships (2)
Defendant argues Juror 50 was not properly probed regarding bias against the defense theory.
Text mentions evaluating Dr. Loftus's testimony in context of the defendant's defense strategy.
Key Quotes (4)
"Juror 50 confirmed both in writing and during oral voir dire that he could '[a]bsolutely' 'decide the case based on the facts and evidence, or lack of evidence, [] presented in court.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
Quote #1
"There is no need for any further inquiry on this subject, beyond perhaps reaffirming that Juror 50 was truthful when he stated that he could decide the case based on the facts and evidence presented in court."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
Quote #2
"The purpose of voir dire is not to educate prospective jurors on the defense theories of the case or to determine if prospective jurors agree with such theories..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
Quote #3
"defendant’s 'defense that her accusers’ memories were unreliable and tainted by money and manipulation.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,232 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 37 of 49
The defendant also argues that the Court and the parties would have “probed” Juror 50
about whether he was able to “set aside his own traumatic experience” when evaluating whether
the Government met its burden of proof. (Def. Mem. at 44). Juror 50 confirmed both in writing
and during oral voir dire that he could “[a]bsolutely” “decide the case based on the facts and
evidence, or lack of evidence, [] presented in court.” Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 130:12-16; see id. at
131:1-7 (stating that he had “[n]o doubt” that he “could decide the case based on the facts and
evidence, or lack of evidence, here presented in court”); see also Def. Ex. 1, Questions 13 & 41.
There is no need for any further inquiry on this subject, beyond perhaps reaffirming that Juror 50
was truthful when he stated that he could decide the case based on the facts and evidence presented
in court.
about whether he was able to “set aside his own traumatic experience” when evaluating whether
the Government met its burden of proof. (Def. Mem. at 44). Juror 50 confirmed both in writing
and during oral voir dire that he could “[a]bsolutely” “decide the case based on the facts and
evidence, or lack of evidence, [] presented in court.” Nov. 16, 2021 Tr. at 130:12-16; see id. at
131:1-7 (stating that he had “[n]o doubt” that he “could decide the case based on the facts and
evidence, or lack of evidence, here presented in court”); see also Def. Ex. 1, Questions 13 & 41.
There is no need for any further inquiry on this subject, beyond perhaps reaffirming that Juror 50
was truthful when he stated that he could decide the case based on the facts and evidence presented
in court.
Finally, the defendant claims that the Court and the parties would have specifically inquired
as to whether Juror 50 was able to fairly evaluate Dr. Loftus’s testimony and impartially assess the
defendant’s “defense that her accusers’ memories were unreliable and tainted by money and
manipulation.” (Def. Mem. at 44). This claim is belied by the voir dire record. The Court did not
ask jurors who answered Question 48 in the affirmative such follow up questions, and rightly so.
The purpose of voir dire is not to educate prospective jurors on the defense theories of the case or
to determine if prospective jurors agree with such theories or would credit specific, as-yet-uncalled
witnesses. Instead, the purpose of voir dire is to “screen individuals who are unable to sit in a fair
and impartial manner.” United States v. Pirk, 15 Cr. 142 (EAW), 2018 WL 1027441, at *4
(W.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2018); see also United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979)
(“[T]he purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis
in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for
his case.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, it is clear that the Court would
as to whether Juror 50 was able to fairly evaluate Dr. Loftus’s testimony and impartially assess the
defendant’s “defense that her accusers’ memories were unreliable and tainted by money and
manipulation.” (Def. Mem. at 44). This claim is belied by the voir dire record. The Court did not
ask jurors who answered Question 48 in the affirmative such follow up questions, and rightly so.
The purpose of voir dire is not to educate prospective jurors on the defense theories of the case or
to determine if prospective jurors agree with such theories or would credit specific, as-yet-uncalled
witnesses. Instead, the purpose of voir dire is to “screen individuals who are unable to sit in a fair
and impartial manner.” United States v. Pirk, 15 Cr. 142 (EAW), 2018 WL 1027441, at *4
(W.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2018); see also United States v. Barnes, 604 F.2d 121, 138 (2d Cir. 1979)
(“[T]he purpose of the voir dire is to ascertain disqualifications, not to afford individual analysis
in depth to permit a party to choose a jury that fits into some mold that he believes appropriate for
his case.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, it is clear that the Court would
35
DOJ-OGR-00009156
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document