DOJ-OGR-00006051.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header:** * **Case Number:** 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * **Document Number:** 407 * **Filed Date:** 11/03/21 * **Page Number:** 3 of 7 * **Law Offices:** Bobbi C. Sternheim **Main Content:** * Judge Pauley granted a motion for a new trial as to Parse's three co-defendants but held that Parse had waived his right to an impartial jury because his attorneys had sat on background research collected before and during trial that suggested Conrad's voir dire answers were false. * Id. at 101. On appeal, the Second Circuit "had no difficulty with the ruling of the district court in the present case that the jury empaneled to hear the case against these defendants was not an impartial jury." Id. at 111. Moreover, the Second Circuit reversed Judge Pauley's ruling that Parse had waived his right to an impartial jury, and vacated Parse's conviction. Id. at 118. * The result in Parse was that a three-month trial, with 41 witnesses and some 1,300 exhibits, was undone by the falsehoods of one juror during voir dire—falschoods that could have been uncovered by thorough background research and prompt action by the parties. Numerous bar associations have recognized that trial counsel is expected to conduct internet research on potential jurors. Some bar associations have opined that professional standards of competence and diligence may require such research. For example, just weeks after Judge Pauley conducted a post-conviction evidentiary hearing in Parse, the New York City Bar Association stated the following in Formal Opinion 2012-2: * Just as the internet and social media appear to facilitate juror misconduct, the same tools have expanded an attorney's ability to conduct research on potential and sitting jurors, and clients now often expect that attorneys will conduct such research. Indeed, standards of competence and diligence may require doing everything reasonably possible to learn about the jurors who will sit in judgment on a case. * Similarly, in 2014, the American Bar Association recognized the "strong public interest in identifying jurors who might be tainted by improper bias or prejudice," and therefore opined that it was proper for counsel to research "a juror's or potential juror's Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial...." See Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 466 at 1-2, Am. Bar **Footer:** * **DOJ-OGR-00006051** Note: The extracted text includes all visible characters, including headers, footers, page numbers, and any handwritten notes. The formatting has been preserved as much as possible, and the original structure of tables and other elements has been maintained using plain text formatting. Any unclear or partially visible text has been included in brackets for clarity.