Event Details

This document is page 14 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court is rejecting the Defense's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 (regarding juror competency as a witness) violates Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and confrontation. The judge rules that Juror 50 was a factfinder, not a witness against the defendant, and cites Supreme Court precedents (Crawford, Tanner) to uphold the limitations on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.

This legal document page argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering statements made by Juror 50 about another juror's comments during deliberations. The text outlines the rule, its specific exceptions (such as extraneous information or racial animus), and concludes that the Defendant's attempt to introduce this evidence does not meet the criteria for any exception and is therefore inadmissible.

This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text presents the Government's argument against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing allegations that 'Juror 50' made false statements during voir dire. The filing cites *Warger v. Shauers* and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences (unless 'extraneous') cannot be used to impeach a verdict.

This page is from a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the legal standards for a post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing precedents like 'Ventura' and 'Guzman Loera.' The Court rules that it will conduct a hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false answers to Question 48 on the jury questionnaire, which asked about personal or family history of sexual harassment or abuse.