DOJ-OGR-00009220.pdf

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 30 of 32 5. Juror No. 50 is not entitled to discovery in advance of the hearing. Finally, for all the reasons given in the new trial motion and the letters about sealing, Ms. Maxwell maintains that Juror No. 50 should not be provided a copy of the questionnaire, which is currently under seal in this Court. Providing that questionnaire will only distort the search for the truth by allowing Juror No. 50 to further refine his story and excuses. Of course, if this Court orders a hearing, Juror No. 50 will receive his questionnaire at that time. But balanced against Ms. Maxwell's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury and this Court's unflagging duty to investigate Ms. Maxwell's claim, Juror No. 50's request for the questionnaire now pales in comparison. Conclusion Let there be no doubt. The prosecution's response is not credible because the government has the luxury of a double standard. If a juror had falsely answered material voir dire questions to favor Ms. Maxwell, the government would not hesitate to prosecute the juror for contempt or perjury. But when, as here, a juror falsely answers voir dire questions to favor the prosecution, the government invokes words like "finality" and "disfavor" and sighs, "well, no trial is perfect." But all trials, perfect or not, require a fair and impartial jury. That is non-negotiable. That is the premise and fundamental guarantee of the criminal justice system, a system that was undermined by Juror No. 50's misconduct. Juror No. 50 was not fair and impartial. His presence on the jury violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights and constituted structural, reversible error. This Court should vacate the 25 DOJ-OGR-00009220