Shaoul
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court decision | The Second Circuit's decision in Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815, which rejected an argument based on a re... | Second Circuit | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Court decision | The court decided the case of United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811 (2d Cir. 1994). | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020955.jpg
This legal document excerpt discusses the standards for setting aside a jury verdict and granting a new trial, particularly focusing on juror nondisclosure during voir dire examination. It cites several Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases, establishing that such motions are disfavored and require a high burden of proof, specifically demonstrating a juror's dishonest answer to a material question that would have led to a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (likely by the Government/DOJ given the footer) in the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues against Maxwell's claim for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' failure to disclose prior sexual abuse. The text cites legal precedents (McDonough, Shaoul, Langford) to establish that a new trial requires 'deliberate dishonesty' by a juror, not just an honest mistake, and asserts that Juror 50 was genuinely surprised by the questionnaire content.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009136.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that there is no basis to find that 'Juror 50' committed a 'deliberate falsehood' during the jury selection process (voir dire). It cites several legal precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit, to establish that juror misconduct requires proving intentional deceit, not just an honest mistake or failure to answer. The document concludes that the current record does not meet this high threshold to prove dishonesty by Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
This legal document discusses the standard for granting a new trial due to a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire. It cites the Second Circuit's application of the two-part test from the Supreme Court case *McDonough*, which requires showing both juror dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have provided grounds for a challenge for cause. The document refutes a defendant's argument by clarifying that the Second Circuit has rejected alternative interpretations and that the defendant's reliance on concurring opinions in *McDonough* is incorrect because a clear majority opinion exists.
DOJ-OGR-00009134.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, is a discussion of the legal standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's potentially false statement during voir dire. The filing argues that, according to Second Circuit precedent established in cases like McDonough and Shaoul, the defendant must prove a juror's falsehood was a deliberate and dishonest act, not merely an honest mistake. While arguing the defendant has failed to meet this standard, the Government consents to a limited hearing on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009132.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court filing (Document 615) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text outlines legal standards for Rule 33 motions regarding alleged juror misconduct and misrepresentations during voir dire. It cites various precedents (Tanner, McDonough, Shaoul) to establish that courts disfavor post-verdict inquiries and require a strict two-part test to prove that a juror answered dishonestly and that a truthful answer would have resulted in a dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00010338.jpg
This legal document is a court's analysis of a defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant argues that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse denied her the ability to use a peremptory challenge. The court distinguishes the applicable federal law (the McDonough standard) from the New Jersey state law cited by the defendant and begins its analysis of the first prong of the McDonough test, noting that Juror 50 did provide inaccurate answers on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg
This legal document presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, asserting that Juror No. 50 engaged in misconduct by providing false answers under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The filing refutes the government's counterarguments, claiming the juror's dishonesty about being a victim of sexual abuse and his use of Twitter demonstrates implied bias and a deliberate pattern of falsehoods that should have resulted in his exclusion from the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009887.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a court case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text argues against the government's position by analyzing several legal precedents, including McDonough, Shaoul, Langford, and Greer, concerning the standard for proving juror bias and granting a new trial. The author contends that a deliberate falsehood by a juror is not a prerequisite for a new trial, citing cases that establish a multi-part test where juror dishonesty is one of several factors to consider.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant has not met the burden of proving that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied during jury selection (voir dire) regarding past sexual abuse, distinguishing between deliberate deceit and honest mistakes based on Second Circuit case law. The Government notes that while Juror 50 made public statements about being a victim, it is not yet proven that his questionnaire answers were deliberately false.
DOJ-OGR-00009811.jpg
This legal document, page 13 of a court filing from March 11, 2022, outlines the legal standards and strong judicial disfavor for post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, it explains that such inquiries threaten the finality of verdicts and the integrity of the jury system. The document also details the strict, two-part test a defendant must satisfy to obtain a new trial based on a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire, requiring proof of both dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have warranted a challenge for cause.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity