McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Greenwood
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A Rule 33 motion based on a juror’s alleged erroneous response during voir dire, governed by McDo... | N/A | View |
| 1984-01-01 | Legal case ruling | McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) cited as legal precedent. | N/A | View |
| 1984-01-01 | Legal case | McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014868.jpg
This legal document discusses the application of Rule 33 motions concerning juror responses during voir dire, referencing the McDonough standard. It details the District Court's finding that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberately incorrect and that Maxwell did not challenge other jurors with similar disclosures. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Gambino and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, to support its legal arguments regarding the standard for overturning trial results based on juror honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00000019.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It discusses a Rule 33 motion regarding Juror 50's erroneous responses during voir dire in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The text argues that under the 'McDonough' standard, a new trial is not warranted because the District Court found the juror's errors were not deliberate and would not have resulted in a strike for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021895.jpg
This legal document, page 18 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the District Court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The motion was based on an allegedly erroneous answer given by 'Juror 50' during voir dire. The document explains that the court applied the standard from 'McDonough v. Greenwood', finding the juror's testimony credible and his response not deliberately incorrect, and also noting that the defendant, Maxwell, had not challenged other jurors with similar backgrounds.
DOJ-OGR-00021812.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers during voir dire, referencing the precedent set in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The District Court found that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberate and would not have resulted in being struck for cause. The document also notes that the party, Maxwell, did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00021746.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 87, Case 22-1426) dated July 27, 2023. It contains a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (cases) and the page numbers on which they appear in the full brief. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021746).
DOJ-OGR-00021126.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated February 28, 2023, argues for a new trial based on the misconduct of 'Juror 50'. It alleges the juror harbored bias and gave untruthful answers during jury selection (voir dire). The document outlines the applicable law, citing the Supreme Court's two-part test from McDonough v. Greenwood for when a juror's false answers warrant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009032.jpg
This document, a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, discusses legal precedent related to juror bias and false answers during voir dire, citing United States v. Langford and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. It emphasizes that the focus in motions for new trial in such situations should be on juror bias and prejudice, and that factors like honesty and intent are relevant to determining actual bias. The document also notes that the terms "deliberate" and "intentional" are used interchangeably in the caselaw.
DOJ-OGR-00009030.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. It cites multiple legal precedents to underscore the critical importance of the voir dire process, which must provide defendants with a full and fair opportunity to uncover potential juror bias. The text establishes that ensuring an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of constitutional law and due process.
DOJ-OGR-00010309.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave false answers during jury selection (voir dire). Juror 50 answered "No" to a question about whether any family member had been accused of sexual abuse, but later admitted his stepbrother had been, and that his mother had reported it to the police. The court is now considering if this false statement satisfies the legal standard (the McDonough test) and would have provided Ms. Maxwell, a party in the case, with a valid reason to have the juror removed for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg
This document is page 31 of a legal filing (Document 642) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments regarding a motion for a new trial, specifically discussing the legal standards for juror misconduct and false answers during voir dire (jury selection). The text cites precedents such as United States v. Langford and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.
DOJ-OGR-00009697.jpg
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity