DOJ-OGR-00021126.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page79 of 113 Court decision, McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 104 S. Ct. 845 (1984). In any event, there was ample evidence establishing that Juror 50 harbored actual bias and that the similarities of his child sexual abuse to the case supported a finding of implied and inferred bias at the time of jury selection such that, had Juror 50 given truthful answers at the time of jury selection, Defendant would have interposed a valid challenge for cause. A new trial must be ordered. B. Applicable Law “When it is discovered that a juror gave false answers during voir dire, any motion for a new trial must first be analyzed under the Supreme Court’s test in McDonough Power Equity v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). Under a two-part test, a party must show that “a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556. Second, the party must show that “a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. Moreover, a new trial can be ordered without a finding of actual prejudice. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 307-10 (1991). The standard of review for a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is abuse of discretion. See, Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d. Cir. 1996). 64 DOJ-OGR-00021126