DOJ-OGR-00021525.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page95 of 217 SA-349 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: Before the Court is the Defendant's motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which the Government opposes. See Maxwell Br., Jan. 19, 2022; Gov. Br., Feb. 2, 2022. The Defendant seeks a new trial on the basis that Juror 50 "falsely answered a material question during voir dire and . . . that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause." Maxwell Br. at 48. The Defendant contends that the current paper record sufficiently supports her motion and should be granted without a hearing. Id. In the alternative the Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing to inquire into Juror 50's alleged nondisclosure. She also argues a broader hearing is required based on a news article that suggests a second juror was allegedly a victim of sexual abuse. Id. at 49. The Government urges this Court to deny the Defendant's motion on the current record, but it consents to a limited hearing on the issue of whether Juror 50 provided a materially false answer to Question 48 of the questionnaire. Gov. Br. at 31-32. The Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record is DENIED. Defendant's motion on the current record relies extensively on statements made by Juror 50 regarding what occurred during jury deliberations that the Court is prohibited from considering under Rule 606. With regard to Juror 50's statements that do not pertain to jury deliberations, in 1 DOJ-OGR-00021525