Greenwood
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A Rule 33 motion based on a juror’s alleged erroneous response during voir dire, governed by McDo... | N/A | View |
| 1984-01-01 | Legal case ruling | McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) cited as legal precedent. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014868.jpg
This legal document discusses the application of Rule 33 motions concerning juror responses during voir dire, referencing the McDonough standard. It details the District Court's finding that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberately incorrect and that Maxwell did not challenge other jurors with similar disclosures. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Gambino and McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, to support its legal arguments regarding the standard for overturning trial results based on juror honesty.
DOJ-OGR-00021895.jpg
This legal document, page 18 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the District Court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The motion was based on an allegedly erroneous answer given by 'Juror 50' during voir dire. The document explains that the court applied the standard from 'McDonough v. Greenwood', finding the juror's testimony credible and his response not deliberately incorrect, and also noting that the defendant, Maxwell, had not challenged other jurors with similar backgrounds.
DOJ-OGR-00021812.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers during voir dire, referencing the precedent set in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The District Court found that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberate and would not have resulted in being struck for cause. The document also notes that the party, Maxwell, did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00021746.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 87, Case 22-1426) dated July 27, 2023. It contains a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (cases) and the page numbers on which they appear in the full brief. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021746).
DOJ-OGR-00021717.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated June 29, 2023, that outlines the legal framework for challenging jurors for cause. It details the different types of juror bias—actual, implied, and inferable—and cites several U.S. court cases to define these categories and establish the criteria for their application. The text also briefly mentions the possibility of a post-verdict hearing for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021653.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' (page 'v') from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 79), dated June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents and case citations used in the main document, including Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases. The document bears a DOJ-OGR (Office of General Review) footer, indicating it was likely released via FOIA or a similar transparency process.
DOJ-OGR-00021126.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated February 28, 2023, argues for a new trial based on the misconduct of 'Juror 50'. It alleges the juror harbored bias and gave untruthful answers during jury selection (voir dire). The document outlines the applicable law, citing the Supreme Court's two-part test from McDonough v. Greenwood for when a juror's false answers warrant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009204.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial due to false answers given by Juror No. 50 during jury selection. The central argument is that Maxwell does not need to prove the juror's falsehoods were deliberate, citing several legal precedents to support the claim that even honest mistakes can warrant a new trial to ensure the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The motion criticizes the government's position as a weak attempt to achieve "finality" at the expense of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because Juror No. 50, and possibly another juror, provided false answers during jury selection, thus depriving her of an impartial jury of 12. The defense refutes the government's argument that they must prove the juror was "deliberately" dishonest, citing case law that they argue sets a different standard.
DOJ-OGR-00009132.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court filing (Document 615) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text outlines legal standards for Rule 33 motions regarding alleged juror misconduct and misrepresentations during voir dire. It cites various precedents (Tanner, McDonough, Shaoul) to establish that courts disfavor post-verdict inquiries and require a strict two-part test to prove that a juror answered dishonestly and that a truthful answer would have resulted in a dismissal for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009030.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment. It cites multiple legal precedents to underscore the critical importance of the voir dire process, which must provide defendants with a full and fair opportunity to uncover potential juror bias. The text establishes that ensuring an impartial jury is a fundamental principle of constitutional law and due process.
DOJ-OGR-00010309.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 15, 2022, analyzes whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, gave false answers during jury selection (voir dire). Juror 50 answered "No" to a question about whether any family member had been accused of sexual abuse, but later admitted his stepbrother had been, and that his mother had reported it to the police. The court is now considering if this false statement satisfies the legal standard (the McDonough test) and would have provided Ms. Maxwell, a party in the case, with a valid reason to have the juror removed for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that she does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's false answers during jury selection were deliberately made. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the argument that even an honest but mistaken answer from a juror can be grounds for a new trial, especially when it raises questions of juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg
This legal document is a reply filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of their motion for a new trial. The central argument is that Maxwell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire), thereby concealing bias. The defense refutes the government's position that they must prove the juror was 'dishonest' or provided a 'deliberate falsehood,' citing case law that establishes a different standard for such situations.
DOJ-OGR-00009811.jpg
This legal document, page 13 of a court filing from March 11, 2022, outlines the legal standards and strong judicial disfavor for post-verdict inquiries into juror conduct. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, it explains that such inquiries threaten the finality of verdicts and the integrity of the jury system. The document also details the strict, two-part test a defendant must satisfy to obtain a new trial based on a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire, requiring proof of both dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have warranted a challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009697.jpg
This document is page 5 of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It lists numerous legal cases, from 1976 to 2021, that are cited as precedent within the main document. Each entry includes the case name, its legal citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00008804.jpg
This document is a letter dated January 5, 2022, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Pagliuca argues against the government's request for a hearing concerning a juror who revealed post-trial that they were a victim of sexual assault. He contends the request is premature and that, based on publicly available information and legal precedent, the court should order a new trial without an evidentiary hearing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity