DOJ-OGR-00021771.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page29 of 35 process, his trauma and his need for therapy to “deal with the stress of the [Maxwell] case. A353-354. In determining whether a juror should be excluded on the grounds of implied bias, a juror’s statements in voir dire are completely irrelevant. The juror may declare that he feels no prejudice in the case. But the law cautiously incapacitates him from serving on the jury because, in general, persons in a similar situation would feel prejudice. U.S. v Burr, 25 Fed Cas. 49,50 (C.C. Va. 1807). It is called the average person test. See U.S. v Haynes, 398 F2d 980, 984 (2d Cir 1968); Dennis v U.S. 339 U.S. 162,176 (1950). Juror 50 fails that test. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 222 (1982) (O’Connor, J., concurring)), led this Court to caution that “automatically presumed bias deals mainly with jurors who are related to the parties or who were victims of the alleged crime itself.” Id. (quoting Torres, 128 F.3d at 45). But this limited set of examples is not exclusive. And while sex abuse victims who timely disclose their victimization may not be presumed biased, jurors who do not disclose their victimization, thereby depriving the court and counsel of vital information as to challenges for cause or peremptory challenges create the extreme situation warned about by Justice O’Connor and the Torres court. See also Nieves. 23 DOJ-OGR-00021771