DOJ-OGR-00005217.jpg
759 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court motion (page 12 of 17)
File Size:
759 KB
Summary
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. The text presents a legal argument advocating for attorney-conducted voir dire (jury selection questioning), citing that attorneys possess more in-depth knowledge of the case nuances than the presiding judge. It references legal precedents from the Fifth Circuit and scholarly articles to support the claim that counsel must be allowed to probe jurors for hidden prejudices.
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Fifth Circuit |
Cited as legal precedent regarding judge's grasp of facts vs. attorneys.
|
|
| A.B.A. |
American Bar Association, cited regarding litigation publication.
|
|
| United States District Court |
Implied by case header 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Southern District of New York).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice, indicated in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Eastern District of Louisiana, mentioned in case citation United States v. Cleveland.
|
Relationships (1)
Counsel
→
Legal/Procedural
→
The Court (Judge)
Text argues that counsel has better knowledge of the case than the Court and should conduct voir dire.
Key Quotes (4)
"The attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005217.jpg
Quote #1
"voir dire may have little meaning if it is not conducted at least in part by counsel."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005217.jpg
Quote #2
"A judge cannot have the same grasp of the facts, the complexities and nuances as the trial attorneys entrusted with the preparation of the case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005217.jpg
Quote #3
"Justice requires that each lawyer be given an opportunity to ferret out possible bias and prejudice of which the juror himself may be unaware until certain facts are revealed."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005217.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,315 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 342 Filed 10/13/21 Page 12 of 17
counsel is not afforded an opportunity to gain the necessary information upon which to base such
strikes."). Without the opportunity for counsel to effectively probe for hidden prejudices, it
would be difficult to accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory
challenges.
strikes."). Without the opportunity for counsel to effectively probe for hidden prejudices, it
would be difficult to accomplish the goal of exercising sensitive and intelligent peremptory
challenges.
A. The Attorneys Have More In-Depth Knowledge of the Case
It is counsel, not the Court, who is in the best position to obtain the information necessary
to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The
attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See, e.g., United States v.
Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at *3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more
likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons, including the fact that a judge
"does not have the advocate's awareness that soon [s]he will be making peremptory challenges
based on inferences from what prospective jurors have said" and the fact that "the judge does not
know the case of either party in detail, so that [s]he cannot realize when responses have opened
areas for further inquiry."² As the Fifth Circuit has recognized:
to exercise intelligent peremptory challenges through attorney-conducted voir dire. The
attorneys have more in-depth knowledge of the case than the Court. See, e.g., United States v.
Cleveland, 1997 WL 2554 at *3 (E.D. LA. Jan. 2, 1997). Important follow-up questions are more
likely to occur to an advocate than a judge for several reasons, including the fact that a judge
"does not have the advocate's awareness that soon [s]he will be making peremptory challenges
based on inferences from what prospective jurors have said" and the fact that "the judge does not
know the case of either party in detail, so that [s]he cannot realize when responses have opened
areas for further inquiry."² As the Fifth Circuit has recognized:
A judge cannot have the same grasp of the facts, the complexities
and nuances as the trial attorneys entrusted with the preparation of
the case. The court does not know the strength and weaknesses of
each litigant’s case. Justice requires that each lawyer be given an
opportunity to ferret out possible bias and prejudice of which the
juror himself may be unaware until certain facts are revealed.
and nuances as the trial attorneys entrusted with the preparation of
the case. The court does not know the strength and weaknesses of
each litigant’s case. Justice requires that each lawyer be given an
opportunity to ferret out possible bias and prejudice of which the
juror himself may be unaware until certain facts are revealed.
Ledee, 549 F.2d at 993 (citing Frates and Greer, Jury Voir Dire: The Lawyer's Perspective, 2
A.B.A. Litigation No. 2 (1976)). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit later amplified this concept, stating
that "voir dire may have little meaning if it is not conducted at least in part by counsel."
A.B.A. Litigation No. 2 (1976)). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit later amplified this concept, stating
that "voir dire may have little meaning if it is not conducted at least in part by counsel."
While Federal Rules [sic] of Criminal Procedure 24(a) gives wide
discretion to the trial Court, voir dire may have little meaning if it is
not conducted at least in part by counsel. The "federal" practice of
almost exclusive voir dire examination by the Court does not take
discretion to the trial Court, voir dire may have little meaning if it is
not conducted at least in part by counsel. The "federal" practice of
almost exclusive voir dire examination by the Court does not take
² Babcock, Voir Dire: Preserving "Its Wonderful Power", 27 Stan. L. Rev. 545, 549 (1975).
11
DOJ-OGR-00005217
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document