Warger
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Shauers
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00021659.jpg
This document is page 'xi' of a legal filing, specifically Document 79 in Case 22-1426, filed on June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and U.S. Code statutes that are cited within the larger document, along with the corresponding page numbers for each reference.
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-00009130.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, analyzes post-trial interviews given by 'Juror 50' in the Maxwell case. The document recounts the juror's statements to media outlets like Reuters and The Independent, where he discussed his initial impartiality, his handling of the juror questionnaire regarding his own experience of sexual abuse, and the jury's reasoning for their verdict. The filing argues that a full review of the juror's interviews demonstrates his impartiality and the care taken during deliberations, countering the defendant's claims of bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010337.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Document 653) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 1, 2022. It outlines the legal standards for a 'McDonough inquiry' regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically discussing whether a juror deliberately concealed truth during voir dire. The text cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b)(1), emphasizing that jurors generally cannot testify about deliberations to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009897.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009833.jpg
This legal document argues that a hearing to question Juror 50 should be strictly limited in scope and conducted by the Court itself. The author contends the inquiry should only focus on whether the juror intentionally lied in response to specific voir dire questions and was actually biased, citing legal precedent and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent improper questioning about jury deliberations. This approach is recommended to avoid harassment of the juror regarding sensitive topics like sexual abuse and to prevent the defendant from introducing inadmissible subjects.
DOJ-OGR-00009554.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text presents the Government's argument against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing allegations that 'Juror 50' made false statements during voir dire. The filing cites *Warger v. Shauers* and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences (unless 'extraneous') cannot be used to impeach a verdict.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity