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-00009834.jpg
This legal document discusses a dispute over whether the Court should conduct a further inquiry into 'Juror 50'. The issue arises from a discrepancy between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his 'no' answer to a related question on the juror questionnaire. The defendant argues for an inquiry to determine potential bias, while the document presents a counterargument that such an inquiry is unnecessary based on the existing record and the juror's other responses.
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-00009550.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 620) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 25, 2022. The text discusses a post-trial motion regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror lied during voir dire about social media usage. The Court ruled that a hearing is warranted regarding specific questionnaire answers but denied the Defendant's request to probe the juror's social media history, citing that the juror's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps were consistent with their testimony.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00009361.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, filed on February 24, 2022, detailing a Q&A session. Ms. Brune, the deponent, discusses legal standards regarding juror misconduct, referencing 'McDonough' cases and a 'New York ethical rule'. She clarifies her firm's lack of 'actual knowledge' of misconduct and acknowledges a July 22nd telephone call where she, her firm, or defendant Parse was deemed 'differently situated' from other defendants.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031690.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a political commentary or op-ed authored by Bill Siegel for FamilySecurityMatters.org. The text heavily critiques a 'McDonough' (likely Denis McDonough) and the Obama administration for stating the U.S. is not at war with Islam, labeling this stance as 'Dhimmitude' and 'unconditional surrender.' The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was collected as part of a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031689.jpg
The text argues that terrorism is just one part of a larger threat that includes "Civilization Jihad" and "International Institutional Jihad," criticizing leaders like McDonough for ignoring these broader dangers. It contends that framing terrorism as a result of U.S. policy or victimhood is a distortion that prevents the West from confronting the reality of a declared religious war, instead relying on a narrative of Western guilt.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity