DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
713 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (government submission regarding voir dire)
File Size:
713 KB
Summary
This document is page 4 of a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues against attorney-led jury selection, supporting Court-led 'voir dire' instead. Additionally, the Government argues that individual sequestered voir dire is not warranted for all questions, suggesting that sensitive topics like sexual abuse and pretrial publicity can be handled at the sidebar rather than in a fully sequestered setting.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The defendant | Defendant |
Referred to as 'she'; arguing for individual sequestered voir dire due to inflammatory charges.
|
| Counsel | Attorneys |
Defense and Prosecution lawyers; discussed in the context of questioning jurors.
|
| Prospective jurors | Jurors |
Citizens being selected for the trial; discussed regarding their candidness and exposure to publicity.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Submitting the argument that Court-led voir dire should be followed.
|
|
| The Court |
The judge/entity conducting the trial and questioning.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Future/Procedural
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The federal district where the case is being tried (implied SDNY based on Case 1:20-cr-00330).
|
Relationships (1)
Government submits arguments opposing the defendant's requests regarding voir dire.
Key Quotes (5)
"Indeed, it is unlikely that attorney-led questioning will yield a significant change in the candidness and openness of prospective jurors"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
Quote #1
"Court-led voir dire remains appropriate in this case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
Quote #2
"Individual 'Sequestered' Voir Dire Is Not Warranted"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
Quote #3
"The defendant argues that individual sequestered voir dire is necessary in light of the nature of the charges in this case, which she claims are 'particularly inflammatory'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
Quote #4
"prospective jurors would not be asked to describe their experiences with sexual assault or the details of pretrial publicity in front of the rest of the venire."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005253.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,142 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 355 Filed 10/18/21 Page 4 of 5
Page 4
Page 4
believe that counsel will be better than the Court at identifying bias, nor that counsel will be more
interested than the Court in removing biased jurors. Indeed, it is unlikely that attorney-led
questioning will yield a significant change in the candidness and openness of prospective jurors if
the Court also limits those questions to one minute per juror, as the defense also proposes. (Id. at
14). Given that prospective jurors are likely to “respond honestly to questions directed to them by
a federal judge,” Saipov, 2020 WL 958527, at *1, Court-led voir dire remains appropriate in this
case.
interested than the Court in removing biased jurors. Indeed, it is unlikely that attorney-led
questioning will yield a significant change in the candidness and openness of prospective jurors if
the Court also limits those questions to one minute per juror, as the defense also proposes. (Id. at
14). Given that prospective jurors are likely to “respond honestly to questions directed to them by
a federal judge,” Saipov, 2020 WL 958527, at *1, Court-led voir dire remains appropriate in this
case.
Accordingly, the Government respectfully submits that the well-established practice in this
District of Court-led voir dire should be followed. Counsel can address potential bias by proposing
questions for the Court to ask (as it already has) and engaging in the strike process, as is customary
and appropriate here.
District of Court-led voir dire should be followed. Counsel can address potential bias by proposing
questions for the Court to ask (as it already has) and engaging in the strike process, as is customary
and appropriate here.
II. Individual “Sequestered” Voir Dire Is Not Warranted
The Government respectfully submits that the well-established practice in this District
should be followed; that is, the Court should ask most questions in open court and ask sensitive
questions, such as those that relate to sexual abuse and media exposure, at sidebar. The defendant
argues that individual sequestered voir dire is necessary in light of the nature of the charges in this
case, which she claims are “particularly inflammatory and of great concern to communities from
which jurors are drawn,” and her concern that “a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the
entire jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity.”
(Dkt. No. 342 at 8-9). Of course, under the typical practice in the District, prospective jurors would
not be asked to describe their experiences with sexual assault or the details of pretrial publicity in
front of the rest of the venire. That questioning would happen at sidebar, in an “individual,
sequestered” setting. But not every prospective juror may need additional questions on those
should be followed; that is, the Court should ask most questions in open court and ask sensitive
questions, such as those that relate to sexual abuse and media exposure, at sidebar. The defendant
argues that individual sequestered voir dire is necessary in light of the nature of the charges in this
case, which she claims are “particularly inflammatory and of great concern to communities from
which jurors are drawn,” and her concern that “a discussion of pretrial publicity in front of the
entire jury pool will contaminate those few jurors who have not been subjected to the publicity.”
(Dkt. No. 342 at 8-9). Of course, under the typical practice in the District, prospective jurors would
not be asked to describe their experiences with sexual assault or the details of pretrial publicity in
front of the rest of the venire. That questioning would happen at sidebar, in an “individual,
sequestered” setting. But not every prospective juror may need additional questions on those
DOJ-OGR-00005253
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document