DOJ-OGR-00009746.jpg
736 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
736 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial due to material omissions by a juror, identified as Juror 50. The juror failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection, which prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge and would have been grounds for dismissal for cause. The argument is bolstered by citing the juror's later statements to the media, where he claimed his memory "was like a video" and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility, revealing a bias that tainted the trial.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Murphy |
Party in the cited case Murphy v. Nogam and Murphy v. Adm'r E. Jersey State Prison.
|
|
| Nogam |
Party in the cited case Murphy v. Nogam.
|
|
| Adm’r E. Jersey State Prison | Administrator |
Party in the cited case Murphy v. Adm’r E. Jersey State Prison.
|
| Scher |
Party in the cited case State v. Scher.
|
|
| Wright |
Party in the cited case Wright v. Bernstein.
|
|
| Bernstein |
Party in the cited case Wright v. Bernstein.
|
|
| Williams |
Party in the cited case State v. Williams.
|
|
| Thompson |
Party in the cited case State v. Thompson.
|
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
A juror in Ms. Maxwell's trial who allegedly made material omissions during jury selection.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Litigant/Defendant |
The individual whose trial is being discussed, who was allegedly prejudiced by Juror 50's omissions.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| New Jersey courts | government agency |
Mentioned as having repeatedly invalidated judgments in similar situations.
|
| Court | government agency |
Refers to the court in Ms. Maxwell's trial, to which Juror 50 should have revealed information.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A contested trial of Ms. Maxwell where the central issue was the credibility of the accusers. The document argues the trial was unfair due to a juror's omission.
During jury selection (voir dire) for Ms. Maxwell's trial, Juror 50 failed to disclose his claimed victim status, which the document argues prevented Ms. Maxwell from exercising her peremptory challenges and resulted in an unfair trial.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
District of New Jersey, mentioned in a case citation.
|
|
|
Location of courts that have set precedent on the issue of juror omissions. Also noted that Juror 50's omissions were...
|
|
|
Used metaphorically ("which side of the Hudson") to suggest that the location of the misstatements does not change th...
|
Relationships (1)
Juror 50 served on the jury for Ms. Maxwell's trial. The document argues that his failure to disclose his own victim status during jury selection prejudiced Ms. Maxwell and denied her a fair trial.
Key Quotes (1)
"was like a video"Source
— Juror 50
(A statement Juror 50 made to the media describing his memory, which he failed to disclose to the Court during Ms. Maxwell's trial.)
DOJ-OGR-00009746.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,991 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 54 of 66
As discussed in Murphy v. Nogam, No. CV 14-4268 (KM), 2018 WL 278735, at *25 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2018), aff’d sub nom. Murphy v. Adm’r E. Jersey State Prison, No. 18-2825, 2021 WL 2822179 (3d Cir. July 7, 2021), New Jersey courts have repeatedly
invalidated judgments where a juror’s inaccurate answer to a question propounded in the jury voir dire precluded a litigant from exercising a peremptory challenge. State v. Scher, 278 N.J. Super. 249, 263 (App.Div.1994), cert. denied, 140 N.J. 276 (1995) (citing Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957); State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976)).
Of course, the material omissions by Juror 50 were not made in New Jersey. The prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and the concept of fundamental fairness, however, are the same regardless of which side of the Hudson the misstatements occurred. In a very close, contested trial where the only real issue was the credibility of the accusers, the failure of Juror 50 to disclose his claimed victim status in jury selection cheated Ms. Maxwell of her ability to intelligently exercise her peremptory challenges and robbed her of a fair trial. In this case truthful responses would have revealed Juror 50’s claimed victim status. He would have been excused for cause on that basis alone and would never answered any questions in person.
Even if Juror 50 had claimed on the questionnaire that he could be fair, despite his victim status, the result would have been the same. He would have been asked to describe to the Court and the parties, under oath, what he claimed happened to him, when it happened, the impact on him, and how he could still be fair. Had Juror 50 revealed to the Court, as he did to the media, that he believed that his memory “was like a video” and that he would advocate that the alleged victims here were credible, based on his own
47
DOJ-OGR-00009746
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document