McDonough
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court decision | The Supreme Court's decision in McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556, which established a two-part test for... | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1988-01-01 | Legal case | The McDonough case, which is being interpreted regarding juror dishonesty and bias. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021716.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that outlines the applicable law for granting a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a). It establishes the high burden of proof on the defendant and explains why post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct are strongly disfavored by the courts. The text cites several key legal precedents to support the argument that protecting the finality of jury verdicts and the integrity of deliberations is paramount.
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-00009206.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell regarding juror misconduct. It contends that the government's view—that Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof because Juror No. 50 was untruthful during jury selection—is unfair and incorrect. The argument cites legal precedents, including McDonough and United States v. Stewart, to establish the proper standard for challenging a juror based on false voir dire responses.
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-00009139.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court filing (Document 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied on a jury questionnaire regarding past victimization, suggesting that laypersons may not classify their own abuse as a 'crime' in the same way legal professionals do. A significant portion of the page following this argument is heavily redacted.
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-00009121.jpg
This document is the Table of Contents for a court filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The filing appears to be the Government's response arguing against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing issues surrounding 'Juror 50' regarding their questionnaire, voir dire, and post-verdict public statements. The outline proposes a limited hearing to question Juror 50 while arguing that the defense has not met the legal standards (McDonough test) to warrant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009042.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. It cites the 2018 New Hampshire case, State v. Ashfar, as precedent, where a new trial was granted because a juror failed to disclose during voir dire that he was a victim of sexual assault. The document draws a parallel between the juror in Ashfar and 'Juror No. 50' in Maxwell's case, suggesting a similar false denial of personal experience warrants a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. The basis for the argument is that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire) by denying he had ever been a victim of a crime or sexual abuse. The document asserts that the juror later admitted to media outlets that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and that this dishonesty was material to his ability to serve as an impartial juror, thus satisfying the legal test for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00010362.jpg
This legal document is a court's conclusion regarding a defendant's motion to find a juror, Juror 50, biased. The defendant argued the juror's failure to disclose a personal history of sexual abuse during jury selection showed an inability to be impartial. The Court rejects this argument, finding that the juror's omission was due to inattention rather than a deliberate lie or perjury, and therefore denies the defendant's motion.
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-00010313.jpg
This legal document, filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell's defense by the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim, argues that Juror 50 was biased and should have been struck from the jury. The filing asserts that the juror's failure to disclose his history of sexual abuse, coupled with his incredible explanations for false statements on a questionnaire, demonstrates a bias that his own assurances of impartiality cannot overcome. The document cites legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the claim that juror bias must be determined from circumstances, not the juror's self-serving statements.
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-00010040.jpg
This document is a transcript of a direct examination of a lawyer, Ms. Brune, regarding her firm's knowledge of potential juror misconduct. Ms. Brune asserts that the legal standard requires 'actual knowledge' of misconduct, which she claims her firm did not possess, though she admits they erroneously believed no misconduct occurred. The questioning also references a July 22nd telephone call where Ms. Brune apparently acknowledged her client, defendant Parse, was in a different situation compared to other defendants.
DOJ-OGR-00009969.jpg
This document is a page from an index for a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case of 'United States of America, v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al.'. The page lists numerous words and proper names (such as McCarthy, McDonough, and Massachusetts) and provides the page and line numbers where they can be found in the full transcript. The document was produced by Southern District Reporters and bears the Bates number DOJ-OGR-00009969.
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-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
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-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-00009884.jpg
This legal document page argues that a new trial is warranted when a biased juror is seated, regardless of whether the juror's false answers during voir dire were deliberate or inadvertent. It cites several Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases, including McDonough, Langford, and Leonard, to support this interpretation and refutes the government's contrary reading of these precedents. The argument centers on the idea that the key issue is juror bias, not the intent behind a juror's dishonesty.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity