DOJ-OGR-00021134.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page87 of 113 testimony was credible and that, had he given truthful answers during voir dire, he would not have been dismissed for cause. The District Court erred when it did not find any bias (actual, implied, or inferred) on the part of Juror 50. Juror 50's testimony revealed that he was not, and could not have been, a fair and impartial juror. At the outset, Juror 50's explanation for his untruthful responses on the questionnaire only as to questions that would have revealed his sexual abuse history were not credible, rendering his self-serving statements that he was unbiased unreliable. His post-verdict statements show how closely he identified with the victims in this case. For example, Juror 50 stated that the verdict against Maxwell was a verdict "for all the victims." During his hearing testimony, he told the trial court that after "seeing the victims brave enough to give their story, I felt like if they can do it, so can I." (H. 24.) As a victim of child sexual abuse, he was not capable of "separating [his] own life experiences from the evidence in the case." Sampson, 724 F. 3d at 167. The court abused its discretion when it credited Juror 50's patchwork of self-serving explanations for his false answers to questions that could have led to the disclosure of his sexual abuse history. His explanation that he did not see the word "you" in question #48 is implausible since he saw it everywhere else. Juxtaposed with his other excuses for false statements, namely, that he did not consider a step- 72 DOJ-OGR-00021134