| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149, 165-66 (2d Cir. 2011) | Second Circuit | View |
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.
This document is page 58 (PDF page 71) of a legal filing from Case 22-1426 (United States v. Maxwell appeal), dated June 29, 2023. The text outlines legal standards regarding post-verdict juror inquiries and Rule 33 motions, citing precedents that protect jurors from harassment and limit testimony regarding deliberations (Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1)). It emphasizes that overturning a verdict based on juror non-disclosure during selection is rare.
This document appears to be page 'vi' (Table of Authorities) from a legal filing, specifically Case 22-1426 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), filed on June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents involving the United States government against various defendants (Annabi, Archer, Ashraf, etc.) primarily in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The document serves as an index for case law citations found later in the full brief.
This legal document is a page from a court filing in which the Government argues for a sentencing enhancement for a defendant. The Government contends that the defendant's criminal activity was "otherwise extensive" under U.S.S.G. ยง 3B1.1(a), citing Second Circuit case law to counter the defense's argument that the enhancement requires supervision of a knowing participant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity