Event Details

This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The defendant seeks to strike a motion to intervene filed by 'Juror 50', claiming it is inappropriate and not a 'judicial document' deserving public access. The author of this filing refutes these claims, arguing that the defendant's cited legal precedents are inapplicable and that Juror 50's motion is relevant to the judicial process and should not be struck.

This document is a legal filing, specifically page 32 of a larger document, arguing the legal standard for scheduling a post-verdict hearing regarding potential juror misconduct by 'Juror 50'. It cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to establish that such a hearing is only warranted under strict conditions, requiring 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence' of impropriety, and is not meant to be a 'fishing expedition' for the defendant.

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.

This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. It describes the conclusion of the voir dire process on November 18, 2021, where the Court questioned prospective jurors about their impartiality and subsequently qualified 58 jurors. The majority of the page is redacted.

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.

This is page 36 of a legal filing (Document 615) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text is a government argument refuting the defense's claim that 'Juror 50' needs to be probed further regarding their ability to assess witness credibility in sexual assault cases. The government argues that Juror 50 already affirmed this ability in their questionnaire (Question 47) and that any further inquiry regarding the juror's personal history of abuse should be limited and conducted privately (sidebar or in camera).