DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
787 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
5
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
787 KB
Summary
This legal document discusses the standard for granting a new trial due to a juror's dishonest answer during voir dire. It cites the Second Circuit's application of the two-part test from the Supreme Court case *McDonough*, which requires showing both juror dishonesty and that a truthful answer would have provided grounds for a challenge for cause. The document refutes a defendant's argument by clarifying that the Second Circuit has rejected alternative interpretations and that the defendant's reliance on concurring opinions in *McDonough* is incorrect because a clear majority opinion exists.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| McDonough | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the namesake of a legal case (McDonough) that established a two-part test for granting a new trial based...
|
| Shaoul | Defendant in a legal case |
Mentioned as the defendant in a case (Shaoul) where the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of a new trial, applying t...
|
| Langford | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the namesake of a legal case (United States v. Langford) whose reading was allegedly 'contorted' and 'in...
|
| Rehnquist | Justice |
Mentioned as the author of the Court's opinion in the McDonough case, which was joined by six other justices.
|
| Marks | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as the namesake of a legal case (Marks v. United States) that provides a rule for determining a court's hol...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit | government agency |
A U.S. Court of Appeals that held a two-part test applies for a new trial based on juror dishonesty, as discussed in ...
|
| the Court | government agency |
Refers to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose holding in the McDonough case is being discussed.
|
| Westlaw | company |
Mentioned in a footnote as a legal research site that may not always clearly list vote counts in court cases.
|
| U.S. Reports | publication |
Mentioned in a footnote as the official publication for U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which indicates the vote count ...
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00009135), likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Relationships (1)
Justice Rehnquist
→
professional
→
six other justices
Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court in McDonough was joined by six other justices, establishing it as the majority holding.
Key Quotes (5)
"Clearly, this is a two-part test."Source
— The Second Circuit
(Quoted from the Second Circuit's holding regarding the standard for a new trial based on juror dishonesty.)
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
Quote #1
"in order to obtain a new trial, a defendant must show both that a juror gave a dishonest answer, and that the correct answer would have provided a basis for the defendant to challenge the juror for cause."Source
— The Second Circuit
(A specific quote from the Second Circuit explaining the two-part test from the McDonough case.)
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
Quote #2
"a new trial is mandated when the correct disclosure would have sustained a challenge for cause, regardless of the juror’s honesty in failing to answer the question correctly."Source
— An unspecified party's argument
(An argument that was specifically rejected by the Second Circuit.)
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
Quote #3
"contorted” and “incorrect” reading"Source
— The Second Circuit
(The Second Circuit's description of an argument relying on its prior decision in United States v. Langford.)
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
Quote #4
"[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices"Source
— The Supreme Court in Marks v. United States
(A quote explaining the condition under which concurring opinions are used to determine a court's holding.)
DOJ-OGR-00009135.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,351 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 16 of 49
and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.’” Id. at 815 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556). The Second Circuit held: “Clearly, this is a two-part test.” Id. Specifically, “in order to obtain a new trial, a defendant must show both that a juror gave a dishonest answer, and that the correct answer would have provided a basis for the defendant to challenge the juror for cause.” Id. at 816 (emphasis in original). Because the defendant in Shaoul, as in McDonough, had failed to satisfy the “threshold requirement” of dishonesty, the Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. Id.
In so doing, the Second Circuit specifically rejected the argument that “a new trial is mandated when the correct disclosure would have sustained a challenge for cause, regardless of the juror’s honesty in failing to answer the question correctly.” Id. at 815 (quotation omitted). As the Circuit explained, that argument relied on a “contorted” and “incorrect” reading of its prior decision in United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1993). Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815. Here, the defendant’s argument relies in significant part on the very same reading of Langford that was explicitly rejected in Shaoul. Compare Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815, with Def. Mem. at 24, 27.
The defendant’s reliance on two concurring opinions in McDonough fares no better. Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court in McDonough was joined by six other justices.8 That opinion, and not the concurrences, therefore sets forth the Court’s holding. Cf. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (determining court’s holding by reference to concurring opinions only “[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices”). And to the extent those concurrences may be considered in construing the holding of McDonough, they were clearly available to the Second Circuit when it did so in
8 While the vote count is not always clearly listed on Westlaw or other legal research sites, the official version in the U.S. Reports indicates as much. See https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep464/usrep464548/usrep464548.pdf.
14
DOJ-OGR-00009135
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document