Relationship Details

This legal document, dated March 1, 2022, addresses the potential bias of Juror 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details questions posed to Juror 50 regarding his recollection of a jury questionnaire about sexual abuse, particularly in light of an interview he gave to a Daily Mail reporter. The document argues that Juror 50's childhood sexual abuse, similar to that of witnesses, is sufficient grounds for a 'for cause' challenge, citing legal precedent on implied and inferable bias.

This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes the testimony of Juror 50 regarding his answers on a jury questionnaire, specifically Question 48. Juror 50 explains that any inaccuracies were unintentional, attributing them to distractions and a desire to finish quickly, rather than a deliberate attempt to be selected for the jury. The document cites legal precedents to argue that the juror's credibility is not diminished, as jurors are not held to the same standards as lawyers.

This legal document is a motion filed by 'Juror 50' on February 24, 2022, requesting to intervene in a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The juror seeks to protect his privacy rights and right against self-incrimination in light of a potential investigation into juror misconduct. To determine whether to file a brief, Juror 50 requests access to his jury questionnaire and voir dire transcript, asking that they be released under seal to his attorney, the Prosecution, and Defense Counsel.

This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.

This legal document is a court's analysis regarding a challenge to the credibility of a juror, identified as Juror 50. The defendant, Maxwell, argued the juror's testimony was "self-serving" and "rehearsed," and that his explanation for an incorrect answer on a questionnaire was not plausible. The Court rejects these arguments, finding the juror's preparation for testimony to be reasonable and his explanation for the questionnaire error credible, ultimately expressing satisfaction with his answers.

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.

This legal document, dated February 11, 2022, is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court denies Juror 50's motion to intervene and also denies the Defendant's request to seal that motion, citing the public's right to access judicial documents. The document then details the Court's analysis of a separate request from the Defendant to temporarily seal documents related to a motion for a new trial, outlining the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit used to evaluate such requests.

This document is page 9 of a filed jury questionnaire (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the responses of Juror ID 50 to three specific legal questions (12, 13, and 14) regarding the defendant's right not to testify, the requirement to judge solely on evidence, and the separation of verdict from punishment. Juror 50 answered 'Yes' to accepting all three legal principles.