| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-01-01 | Legal case | Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) | N/A | View |
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion or a party's brief, dated February 25, 2022. The text analyzes Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations to challenge a verdict. The document discusses the rule's specific exceptions, such as external influence or racial bias, in the context of the Defendant's attempt to use statements from 'Juror 50' about what another juror said. The central issue is whether these statements are barred by Rule 606 or fall under one of its exceptions.
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues that 'Juror No. 50' lacks legal standing and has no right to intervene in a criminal case. The filing references several legal precedents, including Cunningham v. Shoop and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, to discuss juror bias and testimony, ultimately concluding that established precedent, such as in United States v. Stoerr, prevents a non-party from having a judicially recognized interest in a defendant's prosecution. The document also notes that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer a questionnaire, having later publicly admitted to being a victim of sexual assault.
This legal document is a portion of a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the court should investigate potential misconduct by two jurors. The motion contends that Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not bar an inquiry into Juror No. 50's alleged bias and false statements, and that a second juror who alerted the New York Times about being a victim of childhood sexual abuse should also be questioned. The argument is that failing to investigate these matters violates Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury.
This document is page 5 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists numerous legal cases, from 1976 to 2021, that are cited as precedent within the main document. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced.
This legal document page argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering statements made by Juror 50 about another juror's comments during deliberations. The text outlines the rule, its specific exceptions (such as extraneous information or racial animus), and concludes that the Defendant's attempt to introduce this evidence does not meet the criteria for any exception and is therefore inadmissible.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity