Ventura
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014-01-21 | Court decision | Decision in United States v. Ventura, 2014 WL 259655. | S.D.N.Y. | 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-00009133.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues against setting aside a jury verdict. It establishes that the standard for doing so is an "exacting hurdle," citing Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which severely restricts jurors from testifying about their deliberations. The document contrasts this federal standard with New Jersey state law and clarifies that only specific, improper outside influences, not a juror's personal experiences, can be grounds for such an inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009547.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely an opinion or order, dated February 25, 2022. The court is addressing a defendant's argument for an evidentiary hearing, rejecting it by citing numerous legal precedents that establish a very high standard for post-verdict inquiries into jury conduct. The court emphasizes that motions to set aside verdicts are disfavored and that allowing such inquiries without concrete evidence could lead to negative consequences like jury harassment and tampering.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity