Event Details

This document is page 17 of a 66-page legal filing (Document 613) from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The substantive content of the page is almost entirely redacted, preventing the extraction of specific details, individuals, or organizations involved.

This document is a signature page from a court filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated February 24, 2022. It lists the legal counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, including attorneys from three law firms: HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. in Denver, and COHEN & GRESSER LLP and the Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim in New York. The document is electronically signed by attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca.

This document is the declaration page from a jury questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. On November 4, 2021, Juror Number 50 signed the declaration, affirming under penalty of perjury that their answers were truthful and completed without outside assistance. The document was officially filed with the court on February 24, 2022.

This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit 2', filed on February 24, 2022, as part of a 10-page submission for the legal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The footer includes a document control number, DOJ-OGR-00009098, indicating it is likely a Department of Justice record.

This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 indicates they have no association with the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and no pre-existing opinions about the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams, or former Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss that would impede their ability to be a fair and impartial juror.

This document is page 44 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text presents legal arguments regarding 'inferable bias' in jury selection, citing precedents such as *United States v. Torres*, *Daugerdas*, and *Greer*. It specifically discusses a scenario where a juror might be dismissed if their past experiences (such as structuring cash transactions) are too similar to the incidents giving rise to the trial.

This document is page 23 of a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 indicates they would not have difficulty assessing the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault and that neither they nor a friend or family member has been a victim of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault.

This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing against the public release of pleadings from 'Juror No. 50'. The argument cites legal precedents, primarily Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, to outline the three-step process for determining public access to judicial documents. The author contends that releasing the documents would be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial and that there is no compelling reason for their release.

This document is page 30 of a court filing, Document 613-1, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The page is a form that identifies "Juror ID: 50" and is otherwise blank, suggesting it may be part of a juror questionnaire or list. A Department of Justice (DOJ) document control number is present in the footer.

This document is a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on February 24, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The potential juror indicates that neither they nor any friend or family member has ever been accused of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault. They also state they have no other experiences that would affect their ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in the case.

This document is page 14 of a juror questionnaire for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 indicates they have no professional, business, or social associations with either the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

This document is page 27 of a court filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. It is a blank supplemental answer sheet for Juror ID 50, likely part of a juror questionnaire, instructing the juror on how to provide answers that did not fit in the provided spaces. The page is also marked with a Department of Justice identifier.

This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the court should strike all filings made by 'Juror No. 50.' The argument posits that the juror, as a non-party, lacks standing and that the filings are an improper attempt at discovery, not 'judicial documents' entitled to public access. Alternatively, it requests that the juror's filings remain sealed pending the outcome of Ms. Maxwell's motion for a new trial, which is based on the same juror's alleged dishonesty during jury selection.

This document is page 21 of a juror questionnaire (Document 613-1) from federal case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. Juror ID 50 answers questions regarding the nature of the charges, which involve sex crimes against underage girls. The juror affirms that the nature of the case, their views on consent laws, and their opinions on federal sex trafficking laws would not prevent them from being a fair and impartial juror.