DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
686 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / appellate court filing
File Size:
686 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal brief (likely by the Government/DOJ given the footer) in the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues against Maxwell's claim for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' failure to disclose prior sexual abuse. The text cites legal precedents (McDonough, Shaoul, Langford) to establish that a new trial requires 'deliberate dishonesty' by a juror, not just an honest mistake, and asserts that Juror 50 was genuinely surprised by the questionnaire content.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; arguing that juror falsehoods should satisfy the McDonough test regardless of intent.
|
| Juror 50 | Juror |
Subject of a controversy regarding non-disclosure of sexual abuse history; gave media interviews.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Trial judge (Alison Nathan) whose factual findings are being discussed.
|
| Shaoul | Defendant (Case Law) |
Referenced in United States v. Shaoul regarding juror dishonesty standards.
|
| Langford | Defendant (Case Law) |
Referenced in United States v. Langford.
|
| McCoy | Defendant (Case Law) |
Referenced in United States v. McCoy.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | ||
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer DOJ-OGR)
|
Relationships (2)
Maxwell does not directly challenge Judge Nathan’s factual findings on this point
in one video interview with the media
Key Quotes (4)
"Juror 50 'appears genuinely and completely surprised to learn that the question-naire' asked about his history of sexual abuse."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell argues that McDonough’s first step is satisfied by any falsehood, deliberate or otherwise."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
Quote #2
"This prong requires a showing of deliberate dishonesty by the juror, rather than mere honest mistake."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
Quote #3
"[s]uch a contorted reading of Langford is incorrect, because it would eliminate the threshold requirement of the McDonough test: juror dishonesty."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,769 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page73 of 93
60
prosecuted for false testimony at the hearing (id.), and
had he hidden his sexual abuse in order to get on the
jury, he would not have immediately disclosed it to the
media after trial (A.335). To the contrary, in one video
interview with the media, Juror 50 “appears genuinely
and completely surprised to learn that the question-
naire” asked about his history of sexual abuse. (Id.).
had he hidden his sexual abuse in order to get on the
jury, he would not have immediately disclosed it to the
media after trial (A.335). To the contrary, in one video
interview with the media, Juror 50 “appears genuinely
and completely surprised to learn that the question-
naire” asked about his history of sexual abuse. (Id.).
Maxwell does not directly challenge Judge Na-
than’s factual findings on this point, much less demon-
strate that they are clearly erroneous. Instead, relying
on United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.
1993), Maxwell argues that McDonough’s first step is
satisfied by any falsehood, deliberate or otherwise.
(Br.66).
than’s factual findings on this point, much less demon-
strate that they are clearly erroneous. Instead, relying
on United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.
1993), Maxwell argues that McDonough’s first step is
satisfied by any falsehood, deliberate or otherwise.
(Br.66).
This argument misses the mark. This prong re-
quires a showing of deliberate dishonesty by the juror,
rather than mere honest mistake. This Court has ex-
plained that, in McDonough, the Supreme Court
“found that the juror’s good faith failure to respond,
though mistaken, did not satisfy even the first prong
of the test.” United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 815
(2d Cir. 1994). The defendant in Shaoul also relied on
Langford to contend that a new trial was appropriate
“even if he cannot establish the juror’s dishonesty.” Id.
This Court rejected that argument, concluding that
“[s]uch a contorted reading of Langford is incorrect, be-
cause it would eliminate the threshold requirement of
the McDonough test: juror dishonesty.” Id. And this
Court concluded that the defendant failed to satisfy
the first prong of the test because “defense counsel ex-
plicitly conceded the good faith of the juror.” Id. at 816;
see United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32, 51 (2d Cir.
quires a showing of deliberate dishonesty by the juror,
rather than mere honest mistake. This Court has ex-
plained that, in McDonough, the Supreme Court
“found that the juror’s good faith failure to respond,
though mistaken, did not satisfy even the first prong
of the test.” United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 815
(2d Cir. 1994). The defendant in Shaoul also relied on
Langford to contend that a new trial was appropriate
“even if he cannot establish the juror’s dishonesty.” Id.
This Court rejected that argument, concluding that
“[s]uch a contorted reading of Langford is incorrect, be-
cause it would eliminate the threshold requirement of
the McDonough test: juror dishonesty.” Id. And this
Court concluded that the defendant failed to satisfy
the first prong of the test because “defense counsel ex-
plicitly conceded the good faith of the juror.” Id. at 816;
see United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32, 51 (2d Cir.
DOJ-OGR-00021720
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document