DOJ-OGR-00021532.jpg
646 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
646 KB
Summary
This legal document discusses a discrepancy between a juror's (Juror 50) responses on a questionnaire and subsequent public statements. Juror 50 denied being a victim of a crime on the questionnaire but later told media outlets, including The Independent and The Daily Mail, on January 5, 2022, that he had been sexually abused as a minor. Based on these contradictory statements, the Court has decided to hold an evidentiary hearing to investigate the matter.
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Independent | media outlet |
One of the media outlets to which Juror 50 gave an interview after the trial.
|
| The Daily Mail | media outlet |
One of the media outlets to which Juror 50 gave an interview after the trial.
|
| Court | government agency |
The judicial body deciding to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Juror 50's statements.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Key Quotes (2)
"Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?"Source
— Juror Questionnaire (Question 25)
(This is the text of Question 25 from the juror questionnaire, which Juror 50 answered "No" to.)
DOJ-OGR-00021532.jpg
Quote #1
"clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has occurred"Source
— Court (citing Baker, 99 F.3d at 130)
(The standard used by the Court to describe Juror 50's public statements, justifying an evidentiary hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00021532.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,304 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page102 of 217
SA-356
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 21
SA-356
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 21
sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger,
acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)
Dkt. No. 462 at 24. In response to that question, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” not the box
for either “Yes (self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But in several public statements
made to media outlets after the trial, including interviews in The Independent and The Daily Mail
dated January 5, 2022, Juror 50 stated that he was sexually abused as a minor. The statements
are direct, unambiguous, and made by Juror 50 himself to multiple media outlets. Moreover, the
statements themselves describe Juror 50’s own experience.⁴ They constitute “clear, strong,
substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has
occurred,” and so warrant an evidentiary hearing. Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.
Although the Court does not decide whether the threshold to hold a hearing based on
Question 25 alone has been met, because the Court will hold a hearing on Juror 50’s answer to
Question 48 and because Question 48 and 25 are sufficiently related, the Court will inquire into
Juror 50’s answer to Question 25. Question 25 asked jurors:
Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?
Dkt. No. 462 at 13. Again, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” and not the box for either “Yes
(self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But Juror 50’s post-trial statements, if true, may
describe criminal conduct of which he was the victim. Therefore, Juror 50’s answer to Question
25 is sufficiently related to the answer to Question 48 and so the Court will also inquire as to
Question 25 at an evidentiary hearing. See Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.
acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)
Dkt. No. 462 at 24. In response to that question, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” not the box
for either “Yes (self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But in several public statements
made to media outlets after the trial, including interviews in The Independent and The Daily Mail
dated January 5, 2022, Juror 50 stated that he was sexually abused as a minor. The statements
are direct, unambiguous, and made by Juror 50 himself to multiple media outlets. Moreover, the
statements themselves describe Juror 50’s own experience.⁴ They constitute “clear, strong,
substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has
occurred,” and so warrant an evidentiary hearing. Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.
Although the Court does not decide whether the threshold to hold a hearing based on
Question 25 alone has been met, because the Court will hold a hearing on Juror 50’s answer to
Question 48 and because Question 48 and 25 are sufficiently related, the Court will inquire into
Juror 50’s answer to Question 25. Question 25 asked jurors:
Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?
Dkt. No. 462 at 13. Again, Juror 50 checked the box for “No,” and not the box for either “Yes
(self)” or “Yes (friend or family member).” But Juror 50’s post-trial statements, if true, may
describe criminal conduct of which he was the victim. Therefore, Juror 50’s answer to Question
25 is sufficiently related to the answer to Question 48 and so the Court will also inquire as to
Question 25 at an evidentiary hearing. See Baker, 99 F.3d at 130.
⁴ The articles additionally state that Juror 50 shared this experience with the jury during deliberations. The Court is
prohibited by Rule 606 from considering that Juror 50 also told this information to the jury. That Juror 50 revealed
that he also disclosed this information to the jury does not prohibit the Court from considering Juror 50’s
independent statements made to a reporter about his own experience.
prohibited by Rule 606 from considering that Juror 50 also told this information to the jury. That Juror 50 revealed
that he also disclosed this information to the jury does not prohibit the Court from considering Juror 50’s
independent statements made to a reporter about his own experience.
8
DOJ-OGR-00021532
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document