DOJ-OGR-00020714.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page96 of 208
A-92

2/22/23, 1:25 PM
SDNY CM/ECF NextGen Version 1.6

redactions will be promptly unsealed except those necessary to protect any continuing interest in juror anonymity and privacy. See United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 146-47 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Press-Enter. Co., 478 U.S. at 14. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/24/2022) (ap) (Entered: 02/24/2022)

02/24/2022 | 608 | NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR THE RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL. Document filed as to Ghislaine Maxwell. (ap) (Entered: 02/24/2022)

02/24/2022 | 609 | MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR RELEASE OF SEALED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AND TRANSCRIPT, ON BEHALF OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR, JUROR 50 as to Ghislaine Maxwell re: 608 MOTION. (ap) (Entered: 02/24/2022)

02/24/2022 | 610 | ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell: for the reasons fully explained in the Opinion & Order, a hearing is necessary to resolve the Defendant's motion. Because of the important interest in the finality of judgments, the standard for obtaining a post-verdict hearing is high. The Court concludes, and the Government concedes, that the demanding standard for holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing is met as to whether Juror 50 failed to respond truthfully during the jury selection process to whether he was a victim of sexual abuse. Following trial, Juror 50 made several direct, unambiguous statements to multiple media outlets about his own experience that do not pertain to jury deliberations and that cast doubt on the accuracy of his responses during jury selection. Juror 50's post-trial statements are "clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, non-speculative impropriety" namely, a false statement during jury selection has occurred. United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 2018). To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored. In contrast, the demanding standard for ordering an evidentiary hearing is not met as to the conduct of any other juror. The Court DENIES the request to conduct a hearing with respect to the other jurors. The Court also DENIES the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and pre-hearing discovery. The Court therefore ORDERS that a hearing take place at which the Court will question Juror 50 under oath. The Court further ORDERS that Juror 50's questionnaire be unsealed, for the reasons explained in the Opinion & Order. The Court will email counsel for Juror 50 a copy of his questionnaire and a copy of this Order. As also explained in the Opinion & Order, the Court will conduct the questioning at the public hearing with input from counsel for the Defendant and the Government. The parties may submit by email proposed questions in accordance with the Opinion & Order on or before March 1, 2022. The hearing will take place on March 8, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court ORDERS Juror 50 to appear in Courtroom 906 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York at that date and time to give testimony under oath in response to the Court's questions. The Court will ensure public access and will provide information on public access as soon as it is available. The Court will send the temporarily sealed Opinion & Order to the parties. By noon on February 25, 2022, the parties are ORDERED to inform the Court whether either seeks limited redactions to the Opinion & Order, conforming any requests to this Court's prior order, Dkt. No. 596, and justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). (Status Conference set for 3/8/2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 906, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Alison J. Nathan) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/24/2022) (ap) Modified on 2/25/2022 (ap). (Entered: 02/24/2022)

02/24/2022 | 611 | LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach dated

https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?211087015221896-L_1_0-1
92/113
DOJ-OGR-00020714