Event Details
Date Unknown
Description
Voir dire of Juror 50, during which an allegedly inaccurate answer was given.
Participants (1)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror 50 | person | 685 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00009113.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 should have been struck for cause due to bias revealed in press statements. It cites legal precedent, primarily the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough and the Second Circuit's test in United States v. Stewart, to assert that a new trial can be granted based on a juror's inaccurate voir dire response, even if the response was not deliberately dishonest. The document contends that the key is whether the juror was actually biased and whether a correct answer would have provided grounds for a challenge.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
The jury selection process where Juror 50 gave answers that corroborated his hearing testimony.
Date unknown
Date referenced regarding Juror 50's testimony/disclosure status
2021-11-04 • N/A
Juror 50 commented on Annie Farmer's Twitter post
2022-01-01 • Twitter
A potential juror (ID 50) answers a questionnaire to determine their suitability to serve on a jury.
Date unknown
A Post-Verdict Hearing where Juror 50 allegedly lied to the Court.
Date unknown • The Court
Voir Dire process where Juror 50 allegedly concealed material information and gave false answers.
Date unknown
Voir dire process where Juror 50 stated he had no doubt about his ability to be fair and impartial.
Date unknown
A hearing where Juror 50 provided testimony.
Date unknown
A close, contested trial involving Ms. Maxwell where the key issue was the credibility of the accusers.
Date unknown
During the jury selection for Ms. Maxwell's trial, Juror 50 failed to disclose his claimed victim status, which is argued to have robbed Ms. Maxwell of a fair trial.
Date unknown
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event