DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg
601 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
5
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
601 KB
Summary
This legal document details post-verdict issues in a criminal case where the defendant was found guilty. A week after the verdict, the Government notified the Court that a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave press interviews claiming to be a victim of sexual abuse, a fact he had denied on his jury questionnaire. The Government requested a hearing on the matter, which the Defendant subsequently opposed in a letter to the Court.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A deliberating juror in the case who gave post-verdict interviews claiming to be a victim of sexual abuse, which he h...
|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
A party in the legal case who was found guilty on five of six counts. The Defendant's counsel filed letters regarding...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| the Court | government agency |
The judicial body presiding over the case. The Court was informed by both the Government and the Defendant about a ju...
|
| the Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, likely the prosecution. The Government requested a hearing regarding Juror 50's post-verdi...
|
Timeline (5 events)
2021-11-29
The parties exercised their peremptory strikes for jury selection.
Court
2021-12-29
The jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding the Defendant guilty of five of the six counts.
Court
Jury
The Defendant
2022-01-05
The Government informed the Court about a juror's post-verdict interviews and requested a hearing.
Court
Relationships (2)
They are opposing parties in a criminal trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Government prosecuted the Defendant, and they took opposing positions on the post-verdict hearing request.
Key Quotes (5)
"No"Source
— Juror 50
(In response to the Court asking if he had any doubt about his ability to be fair to both sides.)
DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg
Quote #1
"any reason to think that [he] can’t be fair and impartial here."Source
— Juror 50
(Affirming his ability to be an impartial juror to the Court.)
DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg
Quote #2
"described being a victim of sexual abuse"Source
— Juror 50
(A description of what the juror said in post-verdict interviews, as noted in a letter from the Government.)
DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg
Quote #3
"flew through"Source
— Juror 50
(The juror's assertion in an interview about how he handled the jury questionnaire.)
DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg
Quote #4
"because based on undisputed, publicly"Source
— The Defendant
(The beginning of the Defendant's reasoning for opposing the Government's request for a hearing, as stated in a letter.)
DOJ-OGR-00020951.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,050 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page125 of 221
A-325
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 8 of 40
A-325
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 8 of 40
the Court asked if Juror 50 had any doubt about his ability to be fair to both sides. Juror 50 replied, “No” and affirmed that he did not have “any reason to think that [he] can’t be fair and impartial here.” Id. at 134.
On November 29, the parties exercised their peremptory strikes. The Defendant used all of her strikes. See Nov. 29, 2021 Trial Tr. at 731–32. Juror 50 was one of fifty-eight qualified prospective jurors, and he was ultimately one of the twelve deliberating jurors. Id. at 733.
C. Juror 50’s post-verdict interviews and party response
Following the thirteen-day trial, the jury began deliberations on December 20, 2021. The jury returned a unanimous verdict on December 29, 2021, finding the Defendant guilty of five of the six counts. Dkt. No. 593 at 29–30.
A week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to press outlets about his jury service and requested a hearing be held on the matter. Dkt. No. 568. The letter noted that in the interviews, which were both in print and on video, the juror “described being a victim of sexual abuse” and asserted that he “flew through” the jury questionnaire and did not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 1. The Government indicated that it believed the juror to be Juror 50, and a review of his questionnaire showed that he had provided a negative response to a question that asked whether a prospective juror had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 2 n.2; see also Feb. 25, 2022 Op. & Order, at 3 & n.1, Dkt. No. 620. A letter from the Defendant followed shortly thereafter also informing the Court about the juror’s interviews. Dkt. No. 569. The Defendant filed a second letter that same day opposing the Government’s request for a hearing “because based on undisputed, publicly
On November 29, the parties exercised their peremptory strikes. The Defendant used all of her strikes. See Nov. 29, 2021 Trial Tr. at 731–32. Juror 50 was one of fifty-eight qualified prospective jurors, and he was ultimately one of the twelve deliberating jurors. Id. at 733.
C. Juror 50’s post-verdict interviews and party response
Following the thirteen-day trial, the jury began deliberations on December 20, 2021. The jury returned a unanimous verdict on December 29, 2021, finding the Defendant guilty of five of the six counts. Dkt. No. 593 at 29–30.
A week after the jury announced its verdict, on January 5, 2022, the Government informed the Court that a juror had given at least three post-verdict interviews to press outlets about his jury service and requested a hearing be held on the matter. Dkt. No. 568. The letter noted that in the interviews, which were both in print and on video, the juror “described being a victim of sexual abuse” and asserted that he “flew through” the jury questionnaire and did not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 1. The Government indicated that it believed the juror to be Juror 50, and a review of his questionnaire showed that he had provided a negative response to a question that asked whether a prospective juror had been a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 2 n.2; see also Feb. 25, 2022 Op. & Order, at 3 & n.1, Dkt. No. 620. A letter from the Defendant followed shortly thereafter also informing the Court about the juror’s interviews. Dkt. No. 569. The Defendant filed a second letter that same day opposing the Government’s request for a hearing “because based on undisputed, publicly
8
DOJ-OGR-00020951
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document