Greer
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Miller
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2002) | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2002-01-01 | Court decision | Decision in the case United States v. Greer. | 2d Cir. | View |
| 2002-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020969.jpg
This legal document, page 26 of a court filing, provides a detailed legal analysis of the concepts of "implied bias" and "inferred bias" in the context of juror partiality. It distinguishes between the two, defining implied bias as a conclusive presumption for extreme cases and inferred bias as a discretionary finding by the trial court based on a juror's responses. The document relies heavily on precedents from cases like McCoy, Greer, and Torres to establish these legal standards.
DOJ-OGR-00021768.jpg
This legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the defense was denied a fair opportunity to expose juror bias during a post-verdict hearing. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Colombo and U.S. v. Greer, to define the constitutional duty of the court to allow for the discovery of bias. The document outlines three types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—to support the proposition that sufficient fact-finding is necessary to ensure a fair trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021747.jpg
This document is page 5 (labeled 'iv') of a legal filing, specifically a 'Table of Authorities' listing case precedents. It belongs to Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell), filed on July 27, 2023. The page lists various United States v. [Defendant] cases along with their citations and the page numbers within the main brief where they are referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00021723.jpg
This page from a legal document refutes an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that the trial judge, Judge Nathan, erred by not finding implied bias in Juror 50. The document argues that under existing case law (citing Torres and Greer), a juror's similar personal experience does not automatically necessitate dismissal, and that there were significant differences between Juror 50's childhood abuse and the abuse discussed in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021655.jpg
This document is page vii from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal cases with the United States as the plaintiff. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation (including the court and year), and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
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-00009153.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrow questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and protect the integrity of jury deliberations, citing numerous legal precedents where courts have similarly controlled such inquiries. The Government also argues against the defendant's request for "pre-hearing discovery" and calling other jurors as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00009150.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the legal standard for 'Inferred Bias' in jurors. It argues that even if 'Juror 50' had disclosed a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, the Court would not have automatically dismissed him for cause without further questioning to establish actual partiality. The text cites precedents like *Torres* and *Greer* to support the trial court's discretion in these matters.
DOJ-OGR-00009146.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against a finding of implied bias for 'Juror 50'. It outlines the Second Circuit's established 'narrow' view on the matter, citing multiple precedents where the court refused to presume bias based on occupational relationships or personal experiences without a showing of actual prejudice. The document asserts that the current circumstances involving Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification set by the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of the Government's response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to satisfy the 'Second Prong of McDonough,' a legal test, regarding Juror 50, who allegedly gave a false answer on a questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse. While finding the defendant's argument unpersuasive, the Government agrees a limited hearing is warranted to determine if the juror's answer was deliberately false and argues the court must decide if it would have granted a challenge for cause, a standard the defendant allegedly omitted.
DOJ-OGR-00009045.jpg
This document is page 44 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'inferable bias' in jury selection, citing precedents such as *United States v. Torres*, *Daugerdas*, and *Greer*. It specifically discusses a scenario where a juror might be dismissed if their past experiences (such as structuring cash transactions) are too similar to the incidents giving rise to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009007.jpg
This document is page vi of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 613), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases with their citations and the page numbers where they are referenced in the main document. The cases cited span from 1936 to 2018 and involve various parties in different U.S. federal and state courts.
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-00010304.jpg
This legal document is page 14 of a court filing, arguing against a defendant's motion claiming juror bias. The author contends that there is no evidence of actual bias from Juror 50, citing the juror's statements, the jury's diligent five-day deliberation, and the resulting split verdict. The document also dismisses the claim of implied bias, stating that the circumstances do not meet the narrow criteria established by the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00010302.jpg
This legal document analyzes the credibility of Juror 50, concluding he should not be struck for cause. It argues that his prior experience with sexual abuse did not impede his ability to be a fair juror and that his subsequent press interviews were a result of naivety, not deception. The document cites the juror's own testimony and demeanor to support the claim that his failure to disclose information was an inadvertent error.
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-00009888.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a prospective juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing asserts that the juror, who was a victim of a sex crime as a child, intentionally lied about his past to avoid being disqualified from a trial concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minors. The document cites various legal precedents to support its claims about juror partiality and the implications of false answers.
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-00009829.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, discusses the legal standard for dismissing a juror based on "inferred bias." It cites several precedents, including *Torres*, *Greer*, and *Ploof*, to establish that such a dismissal is at the discretion of the trial court and requires a high standard of proof, typically developed during voir dire. The text argues that the court would not have struck Juror 50 for inferred bias based on a hypothetical disclosure of sexual abuse, and distinguishes the defendant's reliance on the *Torres* case, where a juror was struck for cause due to involvement in structuring cash deposits.
DOJ-OGR-00009825.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against excusing 'Juror 50' for implied bias. It heavily cites Second Circuit precedent, which maintains a 'narrow' view on the matter, requiring more than just similar personal experiences or occupational relationships to presume bias. The document asserts that the circumstances of Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification established by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009822.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no evidence of actual bias from Juror 50 in the trial of a defendant named Maxwell. It cites the juror's public statements affirming his belief in the presumption of innocence, the jury's careful deliberations, and his answers during voir dire as proof of his impartiality. The document contrasts this with the defendant's claims that the juror made prejudicial statements after the trial, such as calling her a 'predator'.
DOJ-OGR-00009821.jpg
This document is page 23 of a legal filing (Document 643) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It contains the Government's legal argument arguing that the Defendant's claims regarding juror bias are unpersuasive. The text defines 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias, citing precedents such as United States v. Torres and Smith v. Phillips to argue that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry in a post-trial context.
DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses a hypothetical scenario involving 'Juror 50' and whether a past history of sexual abuse, if disclosed, would have led to a successful challenge for cause. The author argues that the Court would not have automatically dismissed the juror, citing its handling of eight other jurors with similar experiences where follow-up questions were used to confirm impartiality. Because Juror 50 did not disclose any such history, the Government now believes a limited hearing is warranted to ask these questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that there is no evidence Juror 50 deliberately lied about his social media use, but acknowledges an inconsistency between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to a questionnaire. The Government agrees that a limited evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine if the juror answered falsely and whether it was intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00003069.jpg
This document is page 135 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the current case is distinguishable from past precedents regarding prosecutorial misconduct and the misuse of false evidence. The text asserts that the defendant has not been deprived of a fair trial and notes that a jury will determine if her statements during April and July 2016 depositions were perjurious.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity