TED DI5 STRIC5 RT SOUTHE4.002 DISTRI5 EW YORK TED AMERIC5 A ELL Defendant4.002 Cr AJN NE WELL TIO5 FOR A TRIAL Jef-3 frey Pa6 gli-3 uca Laura-2 A Menninger D7 e4 n5 v5 e4 CO9 Phone Chris-2 tian E3 ver-2 dell CO4 HEN GRES4 ER LLP Bobbi S3 ter-4 nheim Law O4 ff-3 ice-3 s4 of Bobbi Ster-3 nhe4 im Broadway Suite-3 New3 York NY4 Phone Attor-3 ney3 for G3 hisl-4 aine Maxwell Case Document Filed Page of ii Tabl-2e Cont-3ents Table-2 of Co5ntent-4s ii Table-2 of Authorities i Int-3roduction The Facts The Law I Ms Ma-3xwel4l i-3s en3titl-2ed 4to3 a new tr-3ial5 A c4alled are-3 m3ispl-4a4ced voir-3 d5ire answer-2s 4were deli-4be4rately fals-3e If-3 Jur-2o5r No had t-2ruth6ful-3ly 3answered Q3uest-3ion3s and t-3he correct r3espons-2es wo5uld have pr-3ovid3ed a valid basis f-3o5r cha3llenge f-2o5r c-2a4use The lawyer-3s4 shoul-2d cond4uct t-4he qu4estioni-2ng The quest-3io3ning s-2hould 3encom-3pass-2 5a4ny topi-3c on 4which act-4ua4l 3bias-3 m3ay be3 base-2d The Additi-3o5nal Bi-2ased J6uror-3 Should 4Be Q3uest-3ion3ed Ms Ma-3xwel4l i-3s en3titl-2ed 4to3 Discove-2ry Jur-2or No is no-2t enti3tled to di-3s4cov4ery-2 in advan6ce of-3 th3e hearing Conclusi-3on Cert-2ificate o4f Ser-3vice Case Document Filed Page of i Tabl-2e Auth-3orities Cases Am3iraul-4t F3air F.2d 1st Cir Burton Jo4hnson F.2d Cir Cannon Lockhart F.2d Cir cf Pe-2na Ro6drigu-2ez C4olora-2do C3t Cf Unite-2d S5tat-3es 3v James F.2d 2d Cir-2 Connick T3hompson U.S3 Diori-2o Kr5eis-3ler Borg 5Const Co F.2d 2d Cir-3 Dyer Calde-2ron F.3d 9th C4ir-3 Gom4ez U-5nit-3ed S4tat-3es U.S3 Gray Mi-4s4sis-3sippi U.S Haynes Wil-2liams F.3d 10th C4ir-3 Inde-2p Cm4ty Bank-2ers of-4 5Am3 Bd o-4f Governors of Fed Rsrv Sys F.3d D.C 3Cir Jama Immigr Customs Enf U.S3 Leonard Unit-3ed State4s U.S3 Mc-2Donough P3ower Equip Greenwood U.S3 pass-2im Beiers-3dor4f Co M3cGohey F.2d 2d Cir-2 Parker Gl5adden U.S3 Purvis-3 Oe5st F.3d Cir3 Schacht-3 4Wi-3s Dep o3f Corr F.3d 7th C4ir-3 Smith Phi4ll-3ips U.7S Tanner Unit-3ed S4tat-3es U.S3 Texaco I-3nc 4v Louis-2iana3 Land Expl-2orat-2ion C5o F.2d Cir Case Document Filed Page of iv United St-4a5tes Daugerdas Supp 2d S.D.N3.Y United St-4a5tes Daugerdas No cr DL3C S3ept United St-4a5tes Ferguso3n F.3d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes French F.3d Cir United St-4a5tes Greer F.3d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Haynes F.2d 2d Cir-3 United St-4a5tes Ianni-3e4llo F.2d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Langfor3d F.2d 2d Cir-2 pass-2im United St-4a5tes Martinez Salaz-2ar U.S3 pass-2im United St-4a5tes McCourty F.3d 2d Cir-3 United St a5tes Moon F.2d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Nelson F.3d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Parse F.3d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Shaoul F.3d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Stewart F.3d 2d Cir-3 pass-2im United St-4a5tes Stone F.2d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Torres F.3d 2d Cir-2 United St-4a5tes Wilke-2rs3on F.3d 2d War-2ger S5hauers Zerka Gre5en F.3d Ci5r Ot-3her Auth6oritie-2s Jer-3emy Pete4rs-2on Unpacking Show Trial-3s4 Si-3tu3ating the Tri-3a5l 3of Saddam Hussein 5Harv I-2nt L.J Ru3les Fed C4ri-3m Fed E3vid Case Document Filed Page of Constit-3ution3al Provi-3sion3s U.S3 Const am-3ends U.S3 Const am-3ends I Case Document Filed Page of Ghisl-2aine M5axwell sub4m3it-3s this reply4 in su-2pport-3 o5f he-2r m-3o5ti-3on5 under Federal Rule of-3 Crim-3in3al Procedure-3 for a new tria4l Intr3oducti3on Ms Ma-3xwel4l ud5iced Par5ker-2 Gladd4en U.S3 hat did not ha-2ppe4n Jur-2or No pre-2sence on 6the j-4u5ry deprived Ms M-3a4xwell of-4 the fai-2r 3and imp5artial-4 5jur-3y th3e due pr-2oce3s4s and t-3he Sixt-2h Amen4dment-4 gua4rantee U.S Const amend VI shoul-2d have 3been di-3s4mi-3s4sed f-3or caus5e United St-4a5tes-3 M-2a5rtin5ez Salaz-2a5r U.S3 The government res-3p5onse t-3o th3is suf-2fers from3 two funda-2m3enta-3l 3err-4o5rs-2 5The fi-3rst i3s to insi-4s4t t-3ha4t a new3 tr-3ial is r5equir-4ed fal-4se 3answers to Quest-2io3ns and That i-3s no4t 3the l-4aw either-2 5the United Stat-4e4s Supre-2me Court no United State-2s 4v Stewart F.3d 2d Cir-2 ap-2ply3in3g Mc-2Donough P3ower Equip Gree nwood U.S3 and4 holdi-3ng that5 the re qu5ir-3e4ment-4 o5f the Mc-2Dono7ugh sta-3ndard for a-2na4lyzing all-4eg4ati-4o5ns t-2hat a juror false-2 vo4ir di-4re concealed bias that-4 a4ff-3e4cte-3d5 the f-4a4ir-3ne4ss 3of t-3he 4tr-3ial 3a par-3ty 3alleg4ing unf-3a4ir-3ne4ss bas-3ed on 4undis-2closed 5jur-3or bias must-4 de4mon3str-4a4te fir-3s4t that t-3he 4jur-3o5r voir-3 d5ire response was4 fa-2lse-3 5and se3cond tha-3t 3th3e cor-3rect It-3 appears that at-3 b5est-3 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l had 5and im-3pa4rtia3l jur-3o5rs-2 not 3the guar-2anteed her-2 by the-2 U7nit-3ed States 3Constit-4u5ti-3on5 know at l-3ea3st one-3 o5th3er 2jur-3o5r in 3addition t-3o Jur-2or No fal-4se3ly deni5ed havi-3ng be4en a vi-3c4ti-3m 3of s-2exual-3 5ab4use or-3 assaul4t Although t-3hi3s Court-2 need3 not hol-3d a h4ear-3ing since 3the r-4e4cor-2d a4lready establi5shes-2 that Ms3 Maxwell-4 wa6s depr-3ived of her Si-3x5th 3Amendme-3nt3 ri-3ght 3to tri-2a4l 3by an im-4pa4rtia3l j-3ury a ny5 such hear-3ing 3must als-3o s4erv-2e 4to3 identif-3y th is ot-4he4r j-3u5ror Such a he4ari-4ng 5li-3ke ly 3would als-3o s4how that Jur-2or No was act-3ua4lly bias-2ed 5in 3addition t-3o b5eing impl-3ied7ly and i-4n5fer-4a4bly bi-3as3ed Case Document Filed Page of res-3ponse wo5uld ha-2ve pr-2o5vided va4lid basi-2s f-2o5r 5chal-3lenge fo4r c-2ause hat be3cause as the Suprem-3e Co6urt-3 he4ld i-3n U7nit-3ed S4tat-3es 3v M-2artinez Salaz-2ar have bee-3n di3s U.7S at Thus i-3rrespective of whether-3 Juror No deli-2be4rat-4e4ly provided f-3a4lse-3 5answer-2s to Q4uest-3ions N4o and t-4hough the rec-3ord s-2how7s he di-3d his)5 pre-2sence on6 the j-4u5ry r-3eq4uir-3es 3rev-2e4rs-2a4l i-3f he w4as i mpl-3iedly infera-2b5ly or-3 act-3ua4ll-3y bi3as3ed Second the-3 5gover-2nment 5mi-3sunde3rs-2ta7nds t-2his Cou4rt 4rol-3e du4ring any evidenti-2a4ry he-2arin5g Ours i-2s an adversarial sy4ste-3m not an 5inqui-3sitorial 3syst-3em Ms 5Maxwell-4 ha4s a r-3igh3t t-3o p5res-3ent her arg-2uments to the Court-2 5to call mate3rial wi3tnes-3se3s4 in su-2pport-3 o5f t-3hose argu5ment-4s 4and to confront-4 and cr-3oss ex4ami-4ne 4those-3 5witnes-3ses T6he gover-3nm3ent req-2ues3t for-3 a na3rr-3o5w and li-2m3it-3e4d hear-3ing in whic-2h only Jur-2or No would te-2s4ti-3fy and only5 the Court w5ould ask questi-2ons fl-3ies i4n the f-4a4ce of t-3his adver3sar-3ial pro3cess A hear-3ing 3conduct-3ed o4n the gove-3rnment terms w3ould violate-2 Ms Maxwell c4onst-2it-3u5ti-3on5al right-3 5to as-3s4istance of co4unsel ha4mstri-3ng the sea4rch or t-3h5e tr5uth and contr-4av4ene the tr-3ad4ition 4and pr-2ecede6nt of-3 th3is j-4ud5ici-4a4l di-3s4trict See e.g XHIBIT Uni-4ted State-2s Daugerdas Case No Cr Hon Wil-3lia5m Pauly I Tr-2ans o3f Mot-4ion 3for N3ew Tri-2al As t4he gover-3nm3ent its-2elf argued in Daug erdas-2 and the-3 a4ff-3e4cte-3d de4fen-2da4nt t-3he4ref-4o5re w4ould be-2 enti-4tled to 3a ne3w tri-3a4l Doc United Stat-3es 3v Daugerdas No cr DL3C Sept-4 This i-3s just4 such case The government r-2esp3onse to Ms-3 5Maxwell 4mot-3ion for-3 a4 new tr-2ial eli5des the s4takes invol-3ved an4d the s-3ign3ifi4cance-3 of the 5const-3itut4ion3al right-3 a4t i-3s4sue Ms Maxw3ell-4 wa o4n tr-3ial fo3r her-2 l3if-3e Tha5t t-3rial 3req-2ui3red fair a-2n5d im-3pa4rt-3ial j3uror-3s Wh4il-3e4 paying lip servi-2c4e to req-2uirement 5of fair 3tr-3ial5 the gove-3rnment 3inca-3nt3s4 the wor-2d a4s a ba-2sis-3 Case Document Filed Page of for-3 tu3rni-3ng a4 bli-3nd eye 3to3 Jur-2or No misconduct and th3e c3onst-2it-3u5ti-3on5al right-3 5to a fa4ir-3 and im-3pa4rt-3ial jur6y and it-4 5then propos-2es a superficia in3quir-3y th3at w4ould m-3ake3 it-3 a4ll-3 but 3impossibl-4e 4for-3 Ms Ma-3xwel4l t-3o m3eet the er rone-2ous4ly3 high burde-2n5 the gove-3rnment a4sks t-3h5is Cour-2t to a5pply Yet thi-3s Cou6rt-3 has an un5fl-3agg4ing duty to i-2nve4sti-4ga4te Ms 3Maxwell 5cla-3im Proper-3ly underst-2ood an4d prope-2rl-3y 5c4onsi-2der-2ed 4Ms Ma-3xwel4l c3laim ha-2s4 evide-3nt 3merit-3 or all 3th3e rea-3sons give5n in t-3he 4mot-3io3n and el-3abo4rat-4ed b4elow thi-3s Cour4t s4hould r-3e4jec-3t 3the gove-3rnm6ent att-4e4mpt-3 5to cripple Ms 3M4axwell v5in3dica-3t ion of her-2 constit-2u5tional 3ri-3ght 3to3 a tria-2l by a fai-2r 3and im-3pa4rt-3ial jur6y The Fact3s The gover-2n5ment res-3p5onse relies-3 h5eavi-3l on 5th3e f-2ac3t t-3ha4t several-4 po5tenti3al j-4u5ror-3s wh6o admitt-3ed 4to 3being vi-4c4tim4s of-2 sexual a4ssaul-4t 3sexual abuse-2 or h3ara-3ss3ment-4 w7ere-3 not 3excluded for-3 cas-2e That is4 nothi-3ng but 3mi-3sdirec3ti-3on5 Those pote-3n5ti-3a4l j-3urors ad4mi-3tted to bei5ng vic-2tims o3f c-2onduct nothing like th3e al-3leged conduct-3 in 3th3is c-3ase Fo6r example p6otentia-2l jur-3o5rs-2 sai-3d 5they w4ere-3 grope-2d5 or ha-2rassed on the-2 subway harassed at-4 wor5k or touched inappr-3opri6ate-3ly 3in a s-3o5cia-3l 3setting Resp at Jur-2or No by contr-4as3t,3 has now adm-2itted t-3o b5eing the victim of ch4il-3d s4exual-3 abus3e the ve-3ry sam4e conduct-4 a4t 3iss-3ue in thi3s 4cas-2e And he has al-3so 4ad4mi-3tted to 3responding t-2o t3hat a-3buse in m-3uch 4the same way t-3h al-3leged victim-2s 4in t-3h5is case respon4ded dela-3y5in3g disc-3losur5e r-2elying on me-2mo3ri-3e4s tha-3t 3can be repla-3y5ed li-4k5e a vi-3deo e3tc This Cour3t shou-2ld not 6be mi-4s4led by the gover-2nment mi-4s4lea-3d5ing3 compa-3rison5s United St-4at3es Fre-3nch F.3d 5Cir quotat3ion omitted Case Document Filed Page of This i-3s a 3case w3her-2e alle3ged chi-3ld v3icti3ms of-4 s4ex4ual a-3buse d3e4laye-3d di3scl-3o5sur-2e of-2 5their cla-3imed abu4s for-3 5many years The centr-3a4l i-3s4sue in the tri-2a4l was t-3he c3red-2ib3il-3ity of 4the accuser-4s about t-4hos4e 4cla-3ims Acc5ordi-3ngly 5was im-3porta5nt f-3or Ms M5axwell-3 to 3screen pr-2ospe3ctive jurors and el-3imina3te any jur-2o5r with a background that would consci5ousl-2y or unconsc iousl-4y 5make-3 th3e jur-3or more s4ympat-4he4ti-3c 4to3 the a-3ccu3se3rs-2 dismiss-3 5c4hall-4eng4es t-3o 5the a-3ccu3sati4ons as-2 overl5y aggr-2essive d4efe-3nse 3tactics and cr-3ed4it-3 5the alleged v3ictim-3s stori3es be-2cause o6f a-2buse s-2u5ff-3e4red-2 by the j-4u5ror-3 as 3a chi-3ld The Court d3enie-3d Ms Maxw3ell 4request t-3o h5ave 3her lawye3rs-2 5quest-3ion pro6spective-2 ju3rors on thi-3s topic denie-3d Ms.3 Maxwell request-2 5to i-3nc4lude a-3ddi3ti-3o5nal que-3s4ti-3on5s on t-2he writ5ten quest-3ionn3aire on his top5ic but-4 a4ssured Ms Ma-3x5well t-4ha4t t-3he4 Court would jur-3ors-2 who d7id not-3 t3ell-4 5th3e tr-4u5th I 36wil3l 36ind3ividuall-3y 34on5e on one 35que4sti-4on 28the 32ju3ror-3s 30and 35with 31the 37pa4rti4es 36present,3 I 16feel4 14confid5ent 12that 11ca3n 14discern 11an4y 14clear 16d5ishonesty Th6is 12is 12not 11just 14g5oing 14be a 44summ-4a4ry v4oir 42dire 45will-3 45be 44probin6g 44jur-3or 44going 44and 44be 44di3shones-2t,3 we w3il-3l sm-4o5ke tha-3t ou3t Tr H5rg a-2t Although given multiple4 opport-3uni3ties t-2o id3entif3y him-3se3lf-3 a4s 4a vic-3tim o4f c4hil-3d sex u5al abuse-2 Jur-2o5r 3No fai-4led to tr-3u5thf-3u5lly res-2pond to very clear and point-3ed q4uest-3ions suc5h as whe6th3er Have you 155friend 156famil-3y 149member have ever-3 154been 155victim-3 156sexua-2l har-2assment 147sexua-2l 151abu4se 151sexual 149assa-3ul3t T4his 152incl-4ud5es 151act-3ua4l sexua-2l 366assault-2 371o5ther 369unwanted3 369sexual 369ad4vance 367including 369stranger,6 acquai-4n5tance super-3vi3sor teacher or family mem3ber-2 Had Jur-2or No tr-3uth3fully di-2s4closed5 his c-3hi3ld icti3m st-4a4tus he w3ould ha-2ve been imm-3e4diat-4e4ly chal-3lenged f4or c-2ause by Ms Maxwell re-2ga4rdl-3e4ss 3of hi-3s ans-2we6rs-2 to any oth5er uestions.3 In t-3he unli-3ke4ly event t-2his chal3lenge w3as de-2nied Jur-2o5r No would have bee-3n q5uest-3ion3ed in3 camera Case Document Filed Page of by the-2 Court Jur-2or No would have bee-3n aske-2d5 to expl-4a4in 3what happe-2n5ed to him as a chi-3ld and the-3 i3mp3act-3 i3t had on him He would have be-3e4n aske-2d if-3 h5is ow4n tr-3aumati-2c 4scarri-3n5g and life changi-3ng ab4use would make hi-2m more symp-2a4theti3c towar-3ds t-2h5e a ccusers thi-3s c3ase a-3n5d les-3s symp-2athetic 6towar-2ds Maxwell-4 H7e would have bee-3n probed about any claimed ab3ilit-2y to be fai-4r 3and imp5artial-4 Of cour-2se everyone wa4nts t-4o be4li-3ev4e tha-3t 3they can be fair a-3n5d im-3pa4rt-3ial a4nd can se-3t 3as3ide any bia-3s 4they may have based on t-4he4ir-3 prior exp3e4ri-3enc3es but-3 5we know3 that-4 thi-3s 4is diffi4cult-4 not im-3possible f6or a-2ny human to do Regardl-3es3s of-2 Ju4ror-3 No 4answer-2s to questi-3ons 4abo4ut hi-3s purpor-3ted ab6il-3ity to d4isr-4e4gar-2d his 2ow7n chil-4dhood 5victim-3izat4io3n Ms Ma-3x5well would have chal-3lenged J5uror-3 No for ca-3us4e an3d consi-3stent4 with ot-3he4r prospective j6uror-3 cha3ll-3en4ges t-3he req-2uest-3 wou7ld have-3 been3 gra-2nted by t5he Court Assumi-3ng J4uror-3 No rec-3ount3ed a4ny of his bel4ief-4s du5ri-3ng 5ju3ry s-2elect3io3n subse-2que4ntl-3y disc-3losed by6 him-3 in the media suc as t-3he abu3sive-3 even3t i-3s li-3ke a v3ideo and victim-2s4 re-2member-2 the e-3ven4t accurately th3ere-3 is no-2 do5ubt a c-3ha4ll-3en4ge would have-2 been m-3ad4e unoppose3d and gra-2nted Now4 af-2ter-4 h5aving be-3en a3lerted by t-4he4 gover-2nment5 that-4 he 4may be in troubl3e Jur-2or No has pr-3edicta3bly eithe-2r w5it-3h th3e assistance of-3 coun4sel-3 or simple5 comm-4on s4e4nse a-2ttempt6ed to disa-3vow his 4ear-3lier com5ment-4s 4and a3cti-4ons go4in3g to gre-2a4t l-3e4ngths to stress his-2 now c6laimed ignor-3anc3e of the questions and his ab4ilit-2y 5to be fair If-3 we the 3law4yer-2s and j-3u5ri-3st in th3is mat-2ter are being trut-2h5ful-3 5th3e ess-3entia4l fac-3ts sur-2roundi-3ng 5thi-3s issue a3re not reall-2y 5subj-2ec3t t-3o di3sput-2e w7hethe-3r 3a pr-2o5spective-2 ju3ror suf-2fered chil-4dhood s4e4xual a-3buse 3was a m-2aterial J4uror-3 No was or-3 cl aims t-2o be4 5victim-3 of Case Document Filed Page of chil-4dhood s4e4xual a-3buse3 and had 4he answer-3ed4 the que-3s4ti-3on5s accurately 4he would have-2 been chal-3lenged for cause-2 and4 disqu-2alified5 The L3aw I Ms 4Maxwe4ll3 is5 2entit4l-2ed to a 5new tri4al A The go5vernment 3p3olicy5 concer4ns the a5bstr3act and the s5o are mis4plac4ed The government r-2esp3onse i-3s conspicuous i-3n 5th3at it doe-2s n4ot begi-4n wi5th3 the l-4aw gover-2n ing n5ew tr-2ial moti4ons bas-2ed o4n jur-3or bias 4Ins-2tea-3d 5the governme-3n5t 3set-3s the tab3le with cour-2ts s-3hou5ld3 tur-3n a b4li-3n5d eye t-3o ju3ror mi-2s4conduc3t bec-3aus3e to do otherwise ould expose-2 jur-3o5rs-2 to har-4as3sment and i-3n5ti-3m3id3ati-4on Resp5 at N7one of-2 these 5concer-4ns h5a4s any pur-3cha3se he-2re In t-3he gove3rnment g4uil-3t To a distr-2ict c4ourt-3 must f3in3d that-4 5ther-4e4 is a 4real concer-4n 5that an innoc-3en4t 3per-2son m-2ay4 have bee-3n c4onvict-4ed Resp at quoti-3ng Unit3ed Stat-4e4s M-2cCourty F.3d 2d Cir quoting Unit3ed Stat-4e4s 3Ferguson F.3d 2d Cir-3 That i-3s no4t 3cor-2rect Everyone ac3cused of-4 a 4crime-2 is e-3nt3itl4ed a tria-2l by a f-2air t3ri-3a4l an im-3pa4rt-3ial 5jur-3y U.S Const am-3en4d VI That cons3ti-3tu3tional promis6e dema-3nds tw5elve-3 fair and impartial juror-2s Parker at any juror who sho4uld ha-2ve been dismisse-2d 5for-3 cause Martine-2z Salazar U.S3 at Uni5ted States Nelson F.3d 2d Cir-3 jur-3or sat me5ans th3e4 def-2endan3ts in thi-3s c3ase w4ere-3 convicted i-3n con4travent-2ion of t4he Sixt-3h Amendme-3nt3 and due pr-3o5ces-2s by a j-3u5ry t-3ha4t ca-3nn5ot be dee3med to have been fully im-3p5artial Case Document Filed Page of Ms Ma-3xwel4l i-3s not-2 5req-2u5ired to show pre-2jud3ice-3 n5or m-3ust the 4Court ha-2ve innoce-3nt p3erson may ha-2v5e been c-3onvi3cte-3d contr-4a4ry c-2on5tention i-3s sp4eci-3ous The government-2 nex4t i-3n5vokes c-2ases-3 5in whic-2h ap4pell-4a4te c-3ou5rts have purpo3rt-3ed 4to vi-3ew 6new These 3cas-2es war-2n 5the gove-3rnm6ent c-3ounse3l 3agai-3ns4t Id Q7uoti-3ng Tann6er Unit-4ed 4Stat-3e the governme-3n5t says aft-4e4r t-3he v4erdict-2 s4eri-4ou5sly disr-2upt 3the finalit-3y o5f the proce-3ss 3Mor-2eover-3 5full and 3fr-3ank4 disc-3uss3ion in t-3he 4jur-3y roo3m j-3urors will-3ing n5ess to return a-2n 5unpopula-2r verdict and the comm-3un5ity trust-2 5in a sys-2tem that relie-2s on 4th3e deci-4s4ions of la-2ypeop4le w4ould b5e under-3m3ined by a barra5ge of-2 post Id quot-3ing T6anner Uni5ted St-4a5tes U.S3 The5 gover-2nment5 als-3o quotes 6the Se-2cond 4Circ-2ui3t de3cis-3ion 3in United State-2s Ianni-3e4ll-3o in whic-2h the C4ourt-3 sai-3d ve4rdi-3c4t i-3nqui3ries ma-3y 5lea-3d 5to evil c-2onse3quences-3 subjecting jur-3ies to ha3rassment inhibiting juryr4oom de-2liberation burde5ning c-2ourts 5with m-3e4ri-3tle5ss appli-4c4ati-4on5s,4 incr-4e4asi-3ng 5temptation 3for jur-2y 5tam-4p5e4ri-3ng and c3reating unc ertaint-4y 5in j-3ury v3erd-2icts F.2d 2d Cir-2 mot-3ions b5as3ed on the-3 co4nduct of-4 5the trial itself e.g the a-3d5mi-3ss3ibilit-4y o5r tr-3u5thf-3u5lness of tes-3timony o4f w5it-3ness-2es Mc-2Courty F.3d at or t-3he qu4ali ty and s-3uffic3ienc-3y of t6he evide-3nce Fe5rguson F.3d at The cas-2es ci5ted by t-4he g4over-2nment d5o not a-2ddre-2s4s the-3 fundament-2a4l right-2 5to t-3rial by 3an4 im-3pa4rt-3ial jur6y and the-3y 5do not undermi-3ne 4the bl-4a4ckle-3tter law that those-3 bas3ic fair t3ri-3a4l ri-3ghts tha4t c4an never-4 be 4tr-3ea3ted a-3s h4a4rm-3less is 5def-2endan3t igh3t t-3o an 4impar3ti-3a4l adjudic-2ator be it-4 5judge or jur-3y Gom4ez Unit-4e4d Stat-3es U.S quoting Gra6y Mi-3ss3iss-3ipp3i U.S3 Case Document Filed Page of The government invocati-3on o5f Ta6nner and Ianniel3lo is stri5kingl-3y disin5genuous oth cases invo3lv3ed al-3leged c4onduct durin6g tr-3ial and c3ruc-2ially dur6ing de-2liberat5ions The in3terest-3 5in is what-3 5mo3ti-3va4ted t-4he S5upre-2me Cou4rt deci-3s4ion i-3n Tanner U.S3 at and the-3 Sec4ond Circuit cautiona-2ry no3te i-4n Ianniell-3o F.2d at In t-3his case 5by contr-4as3t 3ther-4e 4is a4t l-3e4ast-3 one jur-3or w5ho fal-4sel-3y5 answer-2ed v4oir di-4re quest-3ions to 3gain se3at o5n the j-4u5r c4onduct t-4ha4t 3occur-3red out3side-3 th3e jur-4y5 room-3 The r3eluc-3tance of c-2ourts to 3second gu es3s jur-4y de4li-3be4rations by i-4n5quir-3ing 3int-3o 5how the jur-4y5 re-2ached its decision sim-4ply has n6o re-2levance 4her-2e and ne3it-3he4r do Tanner or Ianni6ell-4o In f-3ac3t he g4over-2nment relianc-3e on Ianni-3e4ll is 7doubly wrong bec-3ause t5he Second Circ-2ui3t there4 set-3 as3ide a-3n5y re-2luctance it might-2 hav4e had to questi-2on the con6duct of-4 de4li-3b5era-3tions by orde-2ri-3ng 5the de-3fenda6nt requeste6d evide-3nt3iary hear-3ing tri4al jur hea3ri-3ng 5must-4 be h4eld w4hen a par-4ty3 come-3s f-2o5rw5ard-2 with c4lea-3r strong 3subst-3antia4l and incontrove-2rt6ibl-3e ev3idence tha-2t 3a s3peci-3fic non specul-4a4ti-3ve 4impropriety has occurred3 Ianni-3e4ll-3o F.2d at 3(quoti-3ng U7nit-3ed S4tat-3es 3v M-2oon F.2d 2d Cir-3 Here of-3 cou4rs-2e the-3 gov5e4rnm-3en4t concedes Ms-3 M4axwell 4entitlement to an evidentiary heari-4ng The government-2 c4annot w4it-3h a straight f-2ac3e cl-3a4im tha3t Ms 3Maxwell 4mot-3ion 3ri-3sk4s expo sing Juror No to har-2assment and intimi-3d5a4ti-3on Let b4e cl-3ea3r The only reason 5Ms Maxwell-4 kn5ows of Jur-3or N5o f-2alse answers-3 d5uri-3ng vo4ir dire is t-4h5at Ju4ror N3o as s-2ought out t-3he 4li-3m3elight He has 4sat-3 for sever6al i-4n5ter-4v5iews wit-3h jour-3n5ali-4s4ts he-3 ha4s4 all-4owed hi4mse-3lf to be videot-4ap4ed 4he has Twee3ted a-3nd publicized imse4lf-3 on soc3ial-4 5medi-4a 4and 4he has e-3ven 4par-2ticipated To be thi-3s s3tandar4d does not-3 a4pply t-3o Ms 3Maxwell c3laim;-3 i3t applies when a new tr-3ial motion 4a ll-3eg4es misconduct durin5g deli-4be4ratio3ns Ianni-3e4ll-3o F.3d at Moon F.3d at Case Document Filed Page of rs-2 Jur-2or N5o has publ-3icly admi5tt-3ed 4maki-4ng ri-3sks nothin4g that-4 Ju4ror-3 5No hasn alre-2ady b4rough3t on himse-2lf Ms Ma-3xwel4l mo3ti-3on h5as not-3hing 3to3 do with he4r innoce-3n5ce 3or gui-3l I i-3n5volves-3 no str-4a4tegy or-4 5a4rt-3ific3e by the defe-2nse A n5d it-3 risks no unauthorized inquir-4y 5into the j-3u5ry r-3o5om The mot-3ion 3is a-3b5out one-2 th3in3g and one thing onl-2y E4ver-2y per-2son cons-2titutio5nal right-3 to fa-2ir-3 5and im-3pa4rt-3ial jur6y The government-2 hope4s4 to deprive Ms Ma-3xwel4l of-3 th3at righ3t i-3n th3e name of This Court-3 hould di-3sreg6ard-2 the gove6rnm-3en4t po4licy ar-2gu5ments which address-2 arg-2uments a3nd cla-3ims M4s Maxwel-3l 3is not makin5g In t-3urn th6e gover-3nm3e4nt policy a3rgum-3en4ts betr-4ay 4the w4eaknes-3s of-2 5its leg-2a4l position A3nd the-2y cast-4 s4ignificant doubt-3 o5n the Unit-4ed4 Stat-3es sole mn duty6 to se-3ek 4justi3ce and not-4 5mer-4e4ly t-3o co4nvict-4 Conni5ck Thompson U.S3 Ms 4Maxwe4ll do-3es4 not3 have t4o pr3ov-4e t4h3at Juror N6o voir 4dire an-3swer4s 3w3er3e del4ibera-3tel4y 3false4 The government-2 5insi-4s4ts that-2 Ms 3Ma3xwell i-4s 4entitl-3ed 4to a new3 tr-3ial only she can pr4ove that-4 Ju4ror-3 N7o deli-4be4rately provided fal-2s4e answ4ers-3 duri-3ng voir-3 dire ot so Contrar-4y 5to the government a3rgument the deci3sion Mc-2Don7ough Pow3er Equip Greenwood do es not-3 e4nti-3rely fo3reclose pa4rt-3y 5fr-3om seekin3g a new tr-3ial5 on the-2 bas3is of a pros-2pective 3jur-3or Zerka3 reen F.3d Cir accord Dyer Calde-2ron F.3d Cir en-2 ba Am3irault3 Fair F.2d Cir-3 Mc-2Donough re-2quires-2 fur-3ther de4termi-3na4ti-3on on 5the que-3s4ti-3on 5of j-3uror bias even where 3a jur-4or is fo3und to ha-2ve 4been 0C cer-2t d3enied U.S3 Cannon Lockhart F.2d Cir Case Document Filed Page of in3terpre-2ting Mc-2D7onough and holdi-4ng that d4ishonesty is 5not a pr-4ed4icate t-3o To 6the c-3ont3rar-4y,5 as f-3ive jus4tices r-3e4cognized in Mc-2Donoug and as the S3econd Cir-3cu4it-3 he4ld i-3n Un7it-3ed S4tat-3es Langford a4 new tr-2ial is required when a bia-2s4ed jur-4or is s4eat-3ed ev3en if the j-4u5ror 4false vo4ir dir4e answer-2s w6ere-3 th3e r-2esu3lt of inadve-3rtence3 ra-2ther than t5he pr-2oduc o5f deliberat4e ef-3fort McD4onough U.S3 at Blac-3kmun 3J conc-2urrin4g c-2iting Smi5th Phi-3llips U.S3 id 5at Connor concur-4rin6g id a4t Bre-2n5nan c-2onc4urr-3ing 3in j-3ud5gment Uni5ted St-4a5tes-3 Langfor-2d F.2d 2d Cir-2 ead the M3c4Donough m-3ult-3i part test 4as gover-2ning not only i-2n5ad4ver-2tent nond5isc-3losures b3ut al-4so nond4isc-3losures o3r misstateme3nts t-4ha4t 0C See al-3so Leon5ard Unit-3e4d Stat-3es U.S pe-2r 3c4uri-3a4m r-3eve3rs-2ing 3c4onviction a4sed on i-3mp3lied bia-2s and 3holdi-3ng that pros-2pective 3jur-3ors-2 who h7ad hear-4d the tri-3a4l court announc-3e 4th3e def-3endan3t guilty v3erdict-2 5in t-3he 4first-3 t3rial should be aut-3o5m3ati-4c4all-4y disqu-2alified fr-3om sit3ti-3ng 5on a se-2cond 4tr-3ial on s4im-3il6ar 2cha3rge-2s In J-2ustice Bl3ackm-3un w6ords-2 which were joi-3ned by Ju3sti-4c4es Ste-3ve4ns and Connor and ex4pre-2ssed a v4iew4 shar-3ed b4y Just-3ice reg-2a4rdless of-3 whe6ther-4 a 4jur-3o5r ans-2wer i-2s 4honest-3 or ishonest it rem-4a4ins wi-2th3in a tri-3a4l court op4ti-3on,5 in det-4e4rmining w4hethe-3r 3a jur-4y was b5ias-3ed 4to or-3d5er 2a post The government-2 5im-3pl3ies some-2th3ing deceitf-3ul by 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l rel5ianc-3e 4on Just-3ice Blackm-3un 4and Jus-2tice 4Brennan c4oncur-2rence noti-3ng that six justices join ed Jus-2tic5e Rehnquist Mc-2Donough maj-4o5ri-3ty opinion Resp 5at Contrar-4y 5to the government 4im-3p5li-3c4ati-4on howe6ver-2 Ms Maxw3ell 4moti4on accur-4a4tely descr-4ib3e M3cDonough and it-4s holdin5g noti-3ng tha7t Jus-3tice Bla3ckmun joi-3n5ed by Jus-2tic5es Ste-3vens and Mot 2at 5Most-3 i3mport4antl-4y any w6ay you look at it fi-3v5e votes-3 is five 7votes-3 Zerka F.3d at counting t-3h5e 4votes-3 in McD4onough and expl-3aining5 the hol-4d5ing And in McD4onough as t-3h Court recognized in Langford when it-2 quo5ted and adopte-3d Just6ice-3 Brennan rea soni-2ng the Mc-2Don7ough citing M3cDonough U.S3 at Bre-2nnan4 conc-2urri4ng in j-3udgm3ent Case Document Filed Page of tr-3ial hea3ri-3ng 5at whic-3h th3e4 mova-2nt has 6the opportun3it-3y to demon5str-4a4te a-3c4tual-4 5bias-3 or in exceptiona-2l 3cir-4cu4mstanc3es t-3ha4t t-3he 4facts are such that-2 b5i Mc-2Donough U.S3 at Bla-2ckmun concu4rr-3ing3 3c4itin4g Smith U.S3 at id a4t Connor concur-4rin6g This i-3s the o6nly read6ing of-3 Mc-2Do7nough and Langford and4 it-3 is only co4nclus-3ion 3the Sixt-2h Amen4dment-4 pe4rmi4ts I-4m3agine-3 5th3e count-3e4rf-3a4ctua-3l 3scenario in which J3uror-3 No trut-3h5fully answer-2ed Quest-2ions 5and I-2f Ms Maxwell-3 5had challe-2ng5ed Jur-3or No.5 for-3 cause and this Court ha-2d d5enie-3d h5at c-3h5all-4eng4e Maxwell-4 w7ould be-2 able6 to r-3a4ise-3 th3e 4iss-3ue in a ne5w tri-3a4l mot-3ion 3and th3at wer-3e 4denie-3d on a4ppeal-3 In the5 new tr-2ial m3oti-3on or on 5a4ppeal-3 Ms 3Maxwell only bur-3den 4would be to prove th-2a4t Juror No was im-3pl3iedly infera-2b5ly3 or a-2ctually bias-3ed E.g United State-2s 4v Haynes F.2d 2d Cir-2 ne-2w tria5l 3req-2uired when a deli-4be4rating 3jur-3or is a-3c4tu3all-4y o5r i-3mp3liedly bi-3a4sed She would not ha-2ve to prove any i-3n5adver-3tent fal-4sehood3s o4r de-2ce3it-3 by J4uror-3 No In t-3he gove3rnment view however Ms-3 Maxwe4ll-3 must ca3rr-3y5 a heavi-4e4r burden tha-2n s4he other-4wise w5ould be-2cause Juror-3 No did not-3 t3e4ll-3 th3e tr u5th That neither make sen3se nor is fair-4 Ms Ma-3xwel4l shou-2ld not 6be punis-3hed 4becaus-3e Ju3ror N3o did not-3 tell tr-3uth p5articularly when Ms Ma-3xwel coul5d not ha-2ve c4hall-4eng4e Ju4ror-3 No f5or c-2ause at the time prec6ise-3ly becaus-3e he d3id not-3 t3ell-4 5th3e tr-3u5th and s3he la-3cked 3an4y abilit-3y to questi-2on 5the juror Fort-2unately 4the gove-3rnm6ent v4iew is w3rong a-2s f-2iv3e jus-3tices 3in3 Mc-2Donough made-3 c4lear and the-3 Seco4nd Cir cuit h5eld i-4n Langf4ord Under Second Circuit-2 l3aw as t-2h5e Court he-3ld3 in United Stat-3es 3v Stew3art demons-3trat3e4 fi-3rst that the juror vo4ir dire respo6nse was f-3als6e and se-3con4d that-4 5the corr-2ec3t res-3ponse United State-2s Stewart Case Document Filed Page of F.3d 2d Cir-2 cit3ing Mc-2Dono7ugh U.S3 at 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l nee-3d not prove-2 a de3libera-2te fa4lse-3h5ood Id The government-2 a4ll-3 bu5t 3ignor-3es S5tew4art relying 3on United State-2s Shao5ul F.3d 2d Cir-3 in an effort t-3o 5mi-3n5imize Langfor3d The government invocati-3on o5f S5haoul fails Fir-2st Shaou5l did not-3 reje4ct t-4he 4arg-2um3ent M-3s Maxw4ell-4 makes 5her-2e owhere i-3n Shaou5l does t-3he Co6urt-3 c4it-3e o4r discuss-2 Justice B4lac-3kmun concur-3ring 6opini-3on or Justi-2c4e Brenn3an opini-3on con4cur-2ri-3ng 5in j-3u5dgment-4 whi5ch toge-3th3er w4ere-3 supported by five justices See 3Shaoul F.3d at This Court-3 shoul-2d n5ot r-3ead Shao5ul to have-3 5rejected an ar-3g5ument-4 did 3not eve-3n consi-3der-2 Second the-3 5langua-3ge 4fr-3o5m Shaoul on5 which the-3 g5over-2nment r3eli-4e4s is-3 d5ict um That becaus-3e 4the Shaoul Court he-2ld 3that th3e def-3endan3t Mc-2Donough tes-3t Id at The C4ourt disc-3u ss3ion of deliberate ver-2sus inadverte-3n5t false answ3ers-3 thus was not necessar-4y 5to its concl-3us4ion 3and thi-4s Cou6rt-3 is not bou5nd by it-3 Ja4ma Immigr Cust-2oms Enf Third if t-3he 4gover-2nment r-2eadi-3ng o5f Shaoul were3 cor-2rect t-2h5e4n Shaoul is i5nconsi-3stent with Langfo4rd not t-3o 5m3enti-4on Mc-2Dono ugh Because Langfo4rd was deci-3d5ed f-2irst and 4becaus-3e Mc-2Donough is a United 6Stat-3es Supre6me Cour-2t op3ini-3on this C7ourt-3 is bo-2un5d by both and not by Shaoul Com4pare United State-2s 4v 4Wi-3lkerson F.3d 2d one 4panel-3 of he eit-4he4r by a-2n 5en banc pa-3n5el of-4 our Co5urt-3 or by 3the S3u w7it-3h Inde-2p Cm4ty Bank-2ers of-4 Am3 Bd o-4f Governor-3s 4of Fed Rsrv Sys F.3d D.C C5ir-3 conf-2lict3ing panel opi-2n5ion3s the e-3a4rlier-3 one 4controls a-3s one p3anel-3 of this court may n5ot ove-2rr-3u5le Case Document Filed Page of q5uoti-3ng Texa4co I-2nc Lo4uisi-4ana Lan6d Exploration Co F.2d Cir see also Haynes4 W-2illi-2ams F.3d Cir with a-2n in3tr-3a circuit conflict a panel 5shoul-2d follo4w earl-3ier se3tt-3led prec3ed4ent ove-3r 3a su3bseque-2nt Bei ersdorf Co M4cGohey F.2d 2d Cir-2 when ther-4e 4is a-3n 5in3tr-3a circuit 5conf-2lict courts m-4u5st f-4o llow the earlier decisi-2on5 Of cour-2se his Cour-2t need not concl5ude tha-3t Sha5oul is i-4n5cons3ist-4en4t wit-3h Mc-2Don ough and Langford in 3orde-2r t-3o 5reje4ct t-4he gov4ernment ar-3g5ument-4 As d6escr-4ib3ed abo3ve Shaoul d5oes not-3 addr-2ess the reading of-3 M3cDonough that-4 Ms Ma-3x5well advocat5es f-3or here since it did not disc-2us4s or e-2ven c3it-3e 4the Mc-2Dono7ugh concur-3ri6ng opini-3ons.4 Mor-2eover-3 S6econd Cir-3cu4it-3 ca3ses f-4o5ll-3o5wing Lanford and Shaoul have reaffi3rm-3ed 4that-4 a deli-4be4rate falsehood i-4s n4ot a prerequisit-2e to a ne-3w7 tr-3ial Cf Un7it-3ed S4tat-3es Mans-2field WL at-2 C4olo No cr PA3B A4ug 3in3 fa-2ce o3f i-3nt3ra c4ir-3cu4it-3 conf-2lict 3fol-3lo3wing fi-3rst eci-3ded c3ase and noti-2ng 5th3at s-3ubsequ3ent c-3as3es had foll-3owed f4ir-3st deci3sion was as wel-2l In Stewart for-3 exa3mpl-3e4 eci-3ded 4in the Cour-2t cited a-3n5d quote McD4onough and yet di-4d 5not r-3equ4ir-3e a4 deli-4be4rately fal-2se 3answe4r s-2tating 3instead unfa-2ir-3n5ess based on undisclos-2ed 4jur-3o5r bi-3as 3must-4 5demons-3trat3e4 fi-3rst that the juror vo4ir dire res-3ponse wa4s f-2alse and s3econd t-3ha4t the cor-2rect 4response woul4d have pr-3ovi3ded a valid 3basi-3s f-2o5r a Stew4art F.3d at 3(c4iting M3cDonough U.S3 at Then ther-4e United St-4a5tes Greer 5which r-2eads Mc-2Donough and Langford just-4 a4s M4s Maxwell-4 rea6ds t-2hem eve3n while-2 citin3g Shaoul United State-2s 4v Greer F.3d 2d Cir As the Court expla-2in3ed in Greer M3cDonough est-3ablishes-2 5a 4mul-3ti pa4rt-3 5test in whi-2ch a jur-4or dis honest-3y is am4ong the-2 fa3ctor-3s to be c5onsi-2dered in3 the ulti-3mat5e det-3ermina3tion of bi-2a5s Id at citing L6angfor-2d F.2d at em-4phas3is added T6hus j-2u st as 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l Case Document Filed Page of expla-3in3ed in the motion pros-2pective 3jur-3or evide-3nce3 p5artialit-3y th3ink of-3 a 4juror who deli-3b5era-3tely lies b5ecaus-3e o4f 5desi-3re to s4it-3 5on a jur-4y and punis-3h o5ne of-2 the par4ti-3es 3to t-3he 4ca3se but t-3h5e lack of de4libera-2tely f3alse answer-2 do5es not-3 prove-2 the ab6sence of p5artialit-3y In t-3he end nder Mc-2Don7ough Langford Stewart and Greer 5a deli-4b5erately fal-3se answer-2 is not-4 requi5red Ju-3r6or N4o 3answe7rs4 were4 deliberatel3y 3false4 Even so t-2he4 re-2cor-2d 5mor-3e4 than s-3uppor3ts t-4he 4concl-3u5sion t-4ha4t Juror No answer-2s to Questi-3ons and not to menti-3on 5his a-3nswers during i-3n pe4rs-2on voir-3 d5ire about s-3oc4ial me-2d5ia use were delibera te ly f-3a4lse Jur-2or No.5 knew he was the-2 victi3m of-3 a c3rime3 He w3as a pros-2pective 3jur-3or in a ca3se wher-2e the6 accus-3ed wa5s on t-2rial 3for all-3eg4ed se-2x5ual misc-3ond5uct wit-4h mi-3nors-2 As 6th3e chil-4dhoo5d victim-3 of a7 sex c-2rime answ3eri-4ng qu5est-3ions in a 4cas-2e abou3t a chil-4dhood sex c-2rime 3th3ere-3 is p5lausible explanati-2on 5for-3 5why Jur-2or No did not answer Questi-3on lea-3d to 3furth4er 2questions 3li-3k what w6as t-3he c3rime,3 which would t-2hen lead t3o quest-3ions about what happened 2to 3him-3 which 4would end with hi-4s d4isqualific-2a4ti-3on Greer F.3d at A deli-4berat4ely f-4a4lse-3 an4s4wer by a j-3uror in vo4ir dire is thu3s ne4it-3he4r ne-2cess6ary-2 nor s-2u5ff-3icient to entit-3le a d6efe-3ndan4t t-3o 5a new tr-3ial It not-2 n5ecessar-2y bec3ause if b5ias-3ed 4jur-3or actua3lly ser-2ve on a jur-4y s4tructur-3a4l error occurs-3 and 4a new tr-3ial i3s r-2eq ui3red e4ven if-4 5the j-4u5ror-3 did not p6rovi-3de a deli-4be4rately fals-3e 4answer during vo4ir dire Martinez Salaz-2a5r U.S3 at Mc-2Don7ough U.S3 at Bla-2ckmun concu4rr-3ing3 id at Brennan con4cur-2ri-3ng 5in j-3u5dgment Smith U.S3 at id a4t Connor con3cur-2ri-3ng5 S5tew4art F.3d at Greer F.3d Langford F.2d at And it 4not su-2ffic3ient becau-2s4e a juror-2 may not be-2 biase5d even i-3f he 7disho-2nestly 4answer-2s a q3uest-3ion duri4ng voir-3 dire Greer F.3d at ana3ly3sis-3 of bias is6 re-2quired ev4en if-4 the j-4u5ror e3rr-3oneo4us r-2espons-2e 4was deli-4be4rate Case Document Filed Page of Questi-3on 5was not confusing or-4 co4mpl-3icated 3a4nd agai-3n th3ere-3 is no-2 5credibl-2e expla-3na4ti-3on 5for-3 why the 4victim-3 of a s6exual-3 assaul4t i-3n a c3ase about se-2xua4l 3assa-3ul3t would not-3 have take-3n a 4long the fact self ser-3v5ing nons-2ens3e the-3 typ3e o4f nons-2ense r5epeat-4ed4ly r-3e4jec-3ted by ourt-3s no5t to mention t-2h5e gover-2nm3e4nt when addr-3essi-4ng 5mat5eri-4a4l omissions f-3a4lse-3 5oaths-3 by omi-3ss3ion For exa-2mp3le in bankrupt5cy pr-2oceedi5ngs the f-4a4il-3u5re 2to 3tr-3uth3fully ans-2wer qu4est-3ions abou6t asse-3ts or ownershi-3p 5int-3e4rests regula4rly leads-3 5the governme-3n5t to mov to d3ism-4iss the3 d5ebtor petiti-3on Not5 sur-2prisingl-3y5 debtor-4s o4ften cl-2a4i confusion mist5ake or-3 in3ad4ver-2tence as 3th3e r-2eas-2on for-3 the fa4lse-3 5answer-2 How4ever-3 success of a ban4krupt-3cy pr-2o5gra-2m li k5e ju3ry trials h5angs he-2avily5 on the-2 verac5it-3y of sta4tements-3 m3ade b3y the ba-3nkrup3t or here4 he pr-2ospe3c4ti-3ve 4jur-3ors S5ee Diori-2o Kreis-2ler Borg Const Co 2d Cir See 3also United State-2s 4v Stone F.2d Cir th pu4rpose of a debt5or f-3ill4ing out a det-2a4il-3ed 4financial is t-4o give-2 depen3dable-3 in3formation wit-2h5out ne-2ed of-2 5going f-3urthe5r Wh4en a fal-4se oa4th gi3ver-2 claims c5are-3lessness-2 5as t-3he reaso4n for-3 the unt5rut-3hful state4ment cou4rt-3s4 ar-2e skept-3ical be3cause in 3a sy3ste-3m 3that-4 5relies-3 on a pe3rson must-4 be 4reg-2a4rde-2d as ser-3ious b-2u5siness;-2 reckl4es3s indi-4ffer3enc3e to t-4he 4tr-3u5th3 is t-4he 4equivalent-3 o5f frau3d Diori-2o F.2d at I a ca s4e li-3k5e thi-4s on4e which c-2ha4rge-2s4 the de-3fenda6nt wit-3h pe4rj-3u5ry it ironic the lengths to which the governme-3n5t h3as gone-2 to e4xcuse-2 Jur-2o5r 3No f-2alse answers-3 a4s not-2hing but an innoce-3nt 3mista-2ke an 4ind3ulgenc-3e 4the governme-3n5t 3is unwi-2lling 4to af-4ford Ms4 Maxwell-4 Case Document Filed Page of If3 Juro-2r N6o h4ad-3 t6ruthfully5 a3nswere4d Q3uest3ions and th4e corre4ct 4re3sp-3onse4s 3would h3av-4e 7p3rov-2ide6d a 3va-4li3d 4ba-3si3s7 for a c3h3allenge for cause It-3 is both un5neces-3sa3ry a-2n5d pre-2mature for t-3h5is Court to c-2ons4ider whether-3 Juror No w4as act-3ua4ll-3y bi3a s4ed It unn5ecessar-2y bec3ause any bia-3s 4is suff-2icien4t t-3o require-2 5a new tr-3ial and he3re 2the reco3rd shows tha-2t Juror No was both i-3m3pli-3ed4ly and infe-2rably biased Becaus3e Jur-3or No was im-3pl3iedl-4y 5an4d inf-3erably b4ias-3ed a n3ew tr-2ial i3s r-2equ4ired Martinez Sal azar U.S3 at And it p4remat-2u5re 2because t3he act-4ua4l bi-3a4s inqu-2ir-3y d5e4pends in part on the-2 s4tate4ment-4s 4a pr-2os4pect-3iv3e jur-3or makes 3duri-3ng vo4ir dire Unit3ed 4Stat-3es 3v Torres F.3d 2d Cir-3 found by t-3he4 judge-2 to be partial-2 e4it-3h5er because-2 5the juror-3 ad4mits3 par-2tial3it-3y o5r t-3he 4judge finds act-3ua4l parti-3a4li-3ty b5ased upon the j-2u5ror voir-3 di3re H7ere-3 Jur-2o5r No hasn had to answer-2s the-3 5quest-3ions th5at would have been posed to him if-3 5he had answer-2ed Questio5ns and tr-3uth3fully4 Only a hearing if th4is C4ourt-3 orde-2rs on will-3 per-2m3it-3 th Court a-3nd pa4rties-2 to eval-3ua4te a-3c4tu3al pa-3rtia3lity4 The government-2 he4re a4ttempts to raise the bar fo3r r-3elie just 5as i-3t d3id i-3n United St-4a5tes Daugerdas Mc-2Don7ough unsuppor-2ted by law But contr-3a4ry t-3o 5the Gover-3n5ment conte nti-3on 5the test-3 is not whether-3 5the tru3e fac-3ts woul-2d 5compe-3l 3the C4ourt-3 to rem3ove a j-3uror f4or c-2ause but5 ra-2ther whet4her-2 a truth3ful res-2pons4e would have3 provi-3ded a 3vali-4d ba4sis-3 5for a cha3ll-3en4ge f-2or cause United St5ates-3 Daug6erdas Supp 2d D.N4.Y or-3de4ri-3ng 5new tr-2ial fo3r tw3o of t-3hree6 def-2endan3ts based on jur-3or provid4in3g fa-2lse-3 5ans3w ers-3 duri-3ng 5voir-3 di3re 2and4 concl-3uding 3that-4 5the def-2endan3t 3waived t-3he new tr-2ial ar-2g5ument vac3ated and r-3e4manded sub nom U4nit-3ed Stat-4es 3v Parse F.3d 2d Cir r6ev ers-3ing dis5tric3t court 4waiver-3 conc3lusi-4on quoting M3cDonough U.S3 at Case Document Filed Page of the dis4tr-3ict cou4rt-3 m3ust de-3term3in3e if-4 would 5have gr-3an4ted the hypotheti-2c4al chal-3lenge Id quoting St3ewart F.3d at cit3in3g Greer F.3d at United State-2s 4v Sha4oul F.3d 2d Cir-2 noti-2ng that u5nder-2 the second pr-4on5g of M-2cDonough a def-2e4ndant m-4us4t 3have a ba-3s4is for a-2rguing t4h at t-4he d4istrict c-2ourt is req-2uired to sustai-3n h5is c-3h5all-4eng4e f-2or c7ause As 4in3 Daugerdas and under-3 a4ny re-2ading of Mc-2Donough Jur-2or No misconduct dem-2on5strate-3s 4that he 4was inca-3pab4le of-4 be4ing an im-3pa4rt-3ial jur6or a-2nd the-2 C7ourt-3 would h5ave st-4ruck hi5m f-3or ca use.3 See i-3d The government contr4ary-2 ar-2gu5ments do not-2 wi5th3sta-3nd sc3ruti4ny Forem-3os4t t-3he gover-2nment 5mi-3sch3ara-3c4terize-3s 5Ma3xwell a3rgument and th5en at-3tempts t5o shoot-2 down the str-4awman 3Ms Ma-3xwel4l does not-3 5argue that-4 every per-2son w6ho has be-2en 4a vic-3tim o4f sexual as-3s4ault Maxwell a3rgum-3en4t is simpl-4y 5that-4 5J4uror-3 No w4as i-3mpliedly biased a4n ar-2gument 5mor-3e 4than suppor-2ted by the record,3 uror-3 No patter-3n 5a4nd pra-2ctice 3of t-3e4ll-3ing 3falsehoods t-4o t3he ourt-3 and the-3 s4tat-4e4ment-4s o4f J-2uror N3o him-3self Likew i se t-3h5e gover-3nm3e4nt m-3isunder4sta-3nds Ms-2 5Maxwell a3rgum-3en4t about Juror-4 No fal-4se 3claims-3 5reg-2arding his social me-2d5ia accou-2n5ts Put-2 asi-3d5e f-2o5r t-3he 4mom-3en4t t-3he gove3rnment im-3pl3ausi-3b5le contention that on t-2h5is score-2 as Jur-2or No didn 3mi-3s4lead the Cour3t and sur-2ely didn 3do so del-3ib3e4rat-4e4ly Ms 3Maxwell-4 do5es not-3 con4tend that J-3u5ror N3o woul-4d have been exc-3lud3ed f-2o cause he had 3ad4mi-3tted to bei5ng a Twitt-3e4r user The p4oint-3 is tha4t Juror No f-2a4lse-3 de4nial-4 o5f be-2ing3 a Twitt-3e4r user i-2s pa3rt-3 o5f 3his pa-3ttern 3a4nd pra-2ctice 3of gi-3ving 3false ans-3wers under-2 oath during vo4ir dire in a suc3ces-2sf-2u5l a4tt-3e4mpt-3 to serve3 as a j-4uror Greer F.3d at Case Document Filed Page of he gover-3n5ment-4 5fails dist-4ingu3ish United St-4a5tes Torres F.3d 2d Cir-2 The government-2 ad4mits3 the c-3as3e is-3 a4nalogous-3 be4cause-3 th3e juror i-3n Torres engaged i-4n c4onduct sim-4ila5r t-3o th3at c-3ha4rge-2d a4gains-3t 3the defendant-4 whi5le he-3re Juro4r N5o was the vi-4c4tim of conduct sim-4ila5r t-3o th3at c-3ha4rge-2d a4gains-3t Ms 6Ma xwell T3he best-4 5the governme-3n5t can must er is 7to sa-3y th3at thi-3s Court h7as di-3sc3retion to chart-2 a d4ifferent pat-4h her-2e But t-2h5e gover-3nm3e4nt doe-2sn offer-3 any rea-3s4on why thi-3s 4Court disc5retion should not be-2 guided by t-4h5e econd Ci3rcu-2it reaso4ning i-3n Torr4es And that bec-2aus3e there no go4od re-2ason tr-3ea3t t-3he 4two case-3s diff3erentl-2y indeed for-2 a4ll-3 5th3e r-2eas-2ons g4iv3en the-3 ca3s4e f-2or i-3n5ferred bias here i4s str-4onge4r t-3ha4n in Torres Final-3ly 3the governme-3n5t ar-3gument 5her-2e is-3 d5ire c4tl-3y con4tr-3a4ry to the argument it made-2 5in3 opposi-2ti-3o5n t3o the ne-3w tri6al m-4o5ti-3on in Daugerdas In t-3ha4t ca-3se 3the gove-3rnm6ent a-3rgued t5hat t-4he Doc United State-2s 4v Daugerdas No cr DL3C Se-4pt In the gover-2nment words T-2hose 131cou4rt-3s 130hav4e 130granted 130new 123tr-3ial 126con4ducte-3d 130po5st ve4rdi-3c4t 131ev4identia-2ry hear-3ing3 314onl3y 314when ii 312follo4wing 314the 312reasoning 311Justice-2 Connor concur-3re nce3 Smith 170Phill-4ips 169where 171the 169quest-3ion3 concea-3led 57p5ers-3onal 57back3ground 61inf-3o5rmat3ion 61so 60a4nalogous-3 54the 62ca3se 61on 54tr-3ial 54that bias-3 9was 4impli-2ed 5as 5m3att-4e4r 11of 6law See 11Dyer 5Calderon Cir juror 135m3urde-2r 136trial 138c4onceal-4ed4 140fact 135that 142brothe5r 140been3 mur-3dered 24manner 25sim5il-3a4r 24that 24a4ll-3eged3 24aga3in3st 27de4fen-2dant Bur5ton 20Johnson 44Cir i-3mp3li-3ed 40bias-3 44found 44cas-2e 45involving 45jur-3or who 52suf-2fere4d 54dom3est-3ic 52abuse 52s4im-3ilar 51to 51that 54of 56de4fen-2da4nt 56who 52was 54accus-3ed4 of ki-3lling he3r hus-2band Id The gove4rnm-3en4t was r-3ight-3 5then a-3b5out when a ne-2w tri-3a4l i-3s 4require-2d wh en as he-2re,7 the j-4u5ror-3 in que-2stion c4onceal-4ed p4ersonal ba-2ckg4round3 inf-3orm6ati-4on so 4analogous to t-3he4 case-3 on t3ri-3a4l 3that-4 b5ias-3 is im-3p5lied as3 a ma-3tter o3f law and it-4 i3s wrong now Case Document Filed Page of This C5ou-3rt7 s3ho-3ul5d rej4ec3t t4he go-2ve4rnment attempt to 6manuf4actu4re3 a He5aring To rea-2d the governme-3n5t br-2ief one 4would thi-3nk 5thi-3s Court c6ould hol-3d a mea-3ning3ful-3 hear-3ing 3at w4hich it 3(and 4not t-3he pa3rti4es would p5ose t-3wo softball que4sti-4o5ns of-2 Jur-2o5r 3No were your f-3alse a4nswers t-4o Q7uest-3ions 5and me-3re7ly i-3nadve3rt-3e4nt and ev4e4n tho ugh you were a victim-3 of chi5ld se-3xua4l abuse isn it true t-2ha4t you 3were a a4nd im-3pa4rt-3ial 5jur-3or ev-2en 4th3ough you have a-2d5mi-3tted us4ing3 your own exper-3ience to3 convinc-3e other-4 5jur-3ors to convict 4Ms Maxwell-4 The government-2 5im-3pl3ies that-3 5an affirmative-2 5to either-2 ques3ti-3o5n would end the-3 hea3ri-3ng.5 Not so The la4wyer4s 3shou-3ld c7onduct the7 questi4on-3i6n3g Fir-2st the pa3rties-2 shou4ld b3e per-3m3itted to quest-2ion Juror No as occurred 3rec-3en4tl-3y in 3th3is judi-3c4ial-4 d5istr3ict-4 United State-2s 4v Stew3art F.3d 2d Cir-2 W4e ther4efo-2re caut-3ion distr6ict-4 cou4rt-3s 4th3at if a-2ny si-2g5nif-3icant dou4bt as-3 to 3a juror imparti3ality r-3e4mai-4n5s in t-4he wake of object-2iv3e evi-3de4nce of-3 false voir-3 dire responses a-2n e4videntia-2ry heari-2ng g5enerall shou4ld be hel-3d Suc5h a hearing is oft-3en 4the most-2 rel5iable way for-3 di3scer-4ning 3the true moti-3v5ations behi-3nd a jur-4or fals3e r-2eplies citations-2 o5m3it-3ted show tria3l can be d5efi-4ned by 5th3e pr-2esence o5f t-3wo ele3ments The first5 ele-3m3ent is incr-4e4ased probabi-2lity of-2 5the de-3fenda6nt conv3icti3on re-2sulting 3fr-3om 3the pla4nning a-2nd c4ontr-3ol o3f t-3he4 tr-3ial The se3cond el e4ment is-2 a 4foc-2us o4n the a-3udi3en4ce out-3s4ide of the c-3ourtroo4m r-3a4ther-4 5than on the accus-3ed th3e ext-3en4t t-3o 5which the-3 t3rial i-3s d4esi-3gne4d or m-3anag3e4d for-3 the ben6efit of-3 ex4ternal-2 J4ere-3my Pe3terson Unpacking Show Trial-3s:-2 S5it-3ua5ti-3ng the Tria5l of-3 Saddam H4ussei-4n 5Harv I-2nt L4.J s4ee 3also Purvis-3 Oe5st F.3d 7th C4ir-3 ias-3ed p4roc-2ess is not due Schac3ht Wis Dep o3f Corr F.3d 5Cir E.g United St-4ates-3 5v Daugerdas Exhibi-2t Case Document Filed Page of At any hea-2ri6ng it-3 is the C6ourt 4job eval-3ua4te t-4he4 evide-3nce p3resented n-2o5t 3pre-2sent-3 5the evide-3nce he evi-3denc3e 4eli-4c4it-3ed 4shou4ld be t-4he p4roduct of a4ll-3 a4vail-4ab4le i-4nv5est-3ig3ati-4on 5an4d re-2search In Dyer Calder-2on F.3d th Cir cited 5fav-2ora-2b5ly by the government Judge Kozi-2n5ski e-3xpl3ained the pe-2rils 3of court co4nducti-4ng a 4j uror-3 bias inq4uir-3y with 3incomplete inf-3ormat3ion 3or f-3ailing 3to 3ask c-2ritical q3uest-3ions 3A judge i-4nv5est-3ig3ati-4ng 5ju3ror-3 bias mus3t f-3ind fac-3ts not m3ake as-3sumpt5ions It-2 5was the t-4ria5l 3cour-2t obli5gati-4on 5to develop the-3 5relevant-3 facts on the-2 recor4d not m-3e4rel pre-2sume-3 5th3em The-2 ju3dge lack o5f ve-2rve-2 5in pursuing t-3h5e matter casts doubt on hi-3s4 fi-3ndings-2.5 Id at The Ninth C5ir-3cuit en b4anc opini-3on als-3o was crit3ica-3l o3f t-3he tr-3ial judge 4ref-4usa3l t-3o 5allow the def-3e4nse t-3o subpo4ena a c-3rit4ical4 witne-2ss of-3 5th3e bia-3s W4her-2e juror mi-3scondu3ct or bias-3 5is c-3re7dibl-3y a4ll-3ege3d the tri-3a4l j-3u5dge canno-2t 3wait f-4or defe4nse c-2ounsel-3 5to spo-2on fee-3d hi3m every bit of i-3n5forma3ti-3on wh7ich would make out-3 a c3a4se of-3 ju3ror-3 b5ias-3 t3he judge-3 has a-2n inde-2p5endent-3 respo6nsibi-4lity 4to sati-2s4fy hims e4lf-3 th3at t-4h5e all4egat-3ion of bi4as i-3s unf-2oun5ded."-2 Id at If-3 the Court 5is c-3har-2g5ed with t-4h5e r-2espo3nsibi-4lity qu4e4sti-4oning Juror No what r-2esou3rces will-3 th3e Court us-3e 4to uncover any s-2tat5eme-3nt3s and 3mi-3ss3tateme-3n5ts m-4ad4e by J4uror-3 No Wi-2ll the Court i-3nves3tigate Jur-2or N5o motives Will the Court hir4e an i-3nves3ti-3g5ator-4 5to f-3ind 3all-4 o5f t-3he post-2s ma-3d5e 4by Jur-2or No.5 about t-4h5e tria-2l Hav3in witne-2ssed Jur-2or No duri-3ng the tr3ial-4 and having pr-4ev4io3usly q-2uesti4oned Jur-2or N5o both t-3hrough 3a 4writ-3ten ques5ti-3onna4ir-3e an4d in pe-2rs-2on under-2 th3e g4over-2nment s4 fa-2rcica3l hearing t-4h5e Court would be-3 5a wit)-3n5ess i)-3nqu5isit3or fac-3tfinde3r an4d s)-2ol3e de3cis-3ion 3maker These m-3u5ltiple conf3li-3c4ted r-4o5les-3 a4re no model-2 5of due-2 proc-2ess Case Document Filed Page of The ques5 tionin3 sh4 ould e3 ncomp4 ass any t3 op5 ic3 on whic3 actu3 al bi5 as ma-2 be b4 as4 ed Mor-2 eover-3 th3 questioning should be signi-2 fican4 tly broade-2 th3 an pr-2 oposed by the-2 gover-2 nment.5 Although Ms-3 Maxwell need not-3 p5 rove Juror-2 N7 inten4 whether-3 h5 act-4 ed 0G 0H 0O 0E 0U 0D 0W 0H 0O 0L 0V 0V 0D 0P 0R 0Q 0J 0W 0K 0H facto4 rs-2 to be ons4 id3 ere-3 0L 0Q 0K 0H 0X 0O 0L 0P 0D 0H 0G 0H 0W 0H 0U 0P 0L 0Q 0D 0W 0L 0R 0Q 0I 0E 0D 0V Greer F.3d at An analysi-4 of uror-3 No intent-2 require-2 cons3 ider-4 a4 ti-3 on o5 the o5 talit-3 of he c3 ir-3 cu4 mst-4 an4 ces-2 And if onl-3 b5 e4 cause-3 Jur-2 o5 No has a pat-3 tern and pra-2 ctice o3 giving false-2 answer-2 to t5 he Court Ms Maxwell is not required to acce p5 any post hoc asse-3 rtion by him-3 th3 at he did not-4 a4 ct deliberate3 ly Cf United State-2 J3 ames F.2d 2d Cir-2 0K 0Q att-4 e4 mpting to show3 bias-3 or nt3 ere-3 s4 as opposed o5 bad eputation the examiner is no5 bound to acce-3 pt the w4 it-3 ness 0D 0Q 0V 0H 0U 0E 0X 0W 0L 0V 0U 0H 0W 0R 0O 0D 0G 0L 0L 0R 0D 0O 0Z 0L 0V 0V 0H 0I 0R 0U 0L 0H 0D 0F 0K 0H 0W The government-2 d5 isi-4 ng5 enuousl-3 su4 ggest-3 that th3 Court ne4 ed not nqu5 ire about-2 th3 deta-3 ils of th3 vic-3 tim sex ual buse ju3 st the C3 ourt-3 did not probe-2 such d3 eta-3 ils with respect to other-4 jur-3 ors-2 who answered Quest ion af-2 firmatively Res p5 at Apparent-3 ly the gover-2 nment has orgotten that Ques5 tion it-3 s4 elf ap-2 prove-2 o5 by he gov4 ern-2 ment ask ed for-3 det ails of-2 an4 af-2 firmati-2 v5 answer-3 to Questi-3 on and each of the ot-4 he4 u5 rors who ans5 wered in he a3 ffir-2 m3 ati-4 ve p5 rovi-3 d5 ed thos-3 de3 tails in wri3 tt-3 e4 for-3 when4 they nswer3 ed Quest-2 ion There-2 was t3 hus no need for he Cour4 inquire t6 he det-3 a4 il-3 du4 ri-3 ng the iv3 voir-3 dire For exam-3 pl3 the governm-3 en4 point-3 to Ju6 ror-3 and notes-3 th3 Court onl-4 foll4 owed up w3 it-3 the quest-3 ion wh5 ethe-3 a question once3 rning abilit-2 to be air and impartial Resp at Yet Jur-3 or ans-2 we6 con3 tained the det3 ail-4 o4 her-2 alleged ab-2 us4 The sam6 with uror Case Document Filed Page of The government-2 ther-4 e4 fore wants Ju4 ror-3 No to3 only now corr-2 ec3 tly answer ion but not gi-2 v5 the details-2 a4 he would have-2 had to do in Qu est-3 ion in he even3 he ha-3 co4 rrectl-4 answered uest-3 ion at he tim4 of-2 voir-3 d5 ire The gover-2 nment als-3 m3 iss-3 es th3 si-3 gni3 fi-3 c4 a4 nt poi-3 nt that-4 none of-2 these other-4 jur-3 o5 rs discl-3 o5 sed childhood sexua-2 abuse5 the a4 cts-3 un5 der-2 ly3 ing he char-3 ges in h5 is ase The gover-2 n5 ment-4 a4 lso misc-3 haracteriz7.092 es he record3 re-2 gar-2 d5 ing questi-2 ons to and pote-3 nt3 ial for-3 cause ch5 all-4 eng4 es aga3 inst-4 any juror who may have been incapable-2.833 o5 a4 ccepting he tes-3 timony of Maxw4 ell exp3 ert Dr Loft-2 us4 See Resp at T6 he gover-3 nm3 ent fir s4 onl-3 y5 point-3 to the a4 ct h5 at none of-2 the j5 uror-3 who a5 nswered es3 to Quest-3 ion3 were as-3 k5 ed about-3 th3 e4 exper-3 tes-3 timony That is beca4 use none-2 of th others li-3 ke Ju4 ror-3 N7 cla-3 imed to have6 been he victim-3 of childhood sexual abuse the ha4 rge-2 in thi-3 cas-2 Why would anyone-2 ha4 ve aske-3 whether-3 a g4 roping on the subw4 ay as an adult-3 woul5 be eplaye5 li-3 ke a v3 ideotape Seco4 nd thi-3 Court inquir4 ed of-2 many other potenti5 al u5 ror-3 including at the request-3.908 o5 the government-2 whether-3 th3 e4 could put-4 asi-3 their o3 utsi-4 de know6 ledge-3 and co3 nside-3 the x5 per-2 tes-3 timo4 ny pre-2 sented at trial See Tr There-2 is not5 hing sugges-2 h5 at had Jur-2 or N5 disc-3 losed his belief5 about-3 th3 s3 cie-3 nce o3 memory he publi-3 c4 ly air-4 ed pos3 v5 erd-2 ict in the media ha4 his own e4 mor-3 is lik3 a vide-3 tape that the-2 C7 ourt-3 would not ha-2 ve o5 llowed up to in3 quir-3 whet3 her-2 he cou3 ld3 fa-2 irly evalu5 ate-3 expe3 rt-3 testim-4 ony o5 t3 hat op5 ic The other-4 ju3 ror-3 who al3 so ans-2 wered3 af-2 firmati-2 v5 ely to questio4 provi-3 de4 the de-3 tail3 as equired by the-2 ques3 tionnair-3 to 8a See gen4 eral-3 ly Resp at Case Document Filed Page For al-3 the reas-2 ons gi-2 ve4 in he mot-3 io3 Rule of E3 vi dence pose)-3 n4 bar-2 to the inqui-3 ry this C5 ourt-3 should conduct o3 Ms Ma-3 xwell motion pri-3 m3 arily b3 ecaus-3 Maxwell-4 posse-2 sses-3 ev4 idenc-3 fr-3 om exte-3 rnal to th3 del-3 ib3 erations to substant-2 iate Ju4 ror N3 bias To the exte-3 nt the R4 ule might-3 ap4 ply as-3 a ba3 to3 li-3 m3 it-3 c4 ertain questi-3 ons it-3 vio3 lates Ms Maxwell const-3 itut4 ion3 al right-3 to d3 ue pr-2 ocess-3 a4 nd to onfr-3 o5 ntation as-3 ap4 pli-3 ed to her-4 U.S3 Const am-3 ends V4 I cf Pena Rodriguez Colorad4 C3 ind3 ing he no im-3 p5 eachment rule-2 of un)3 const-3 itut4 ion3 al app3 li-3 ed4 to uror stat5 eme-3 nt3 indic4 ati-4 ng rac-3 ial bias-3 The ules-3 of Evidence-3 ca3 nnot onstit3 uti-3 ona4 ll-3 pre7 vent Maxw4 ell-4 fr-3 o5 provi ng juro6 isconduc5 and vindi-3 ca3 ti-3 ng her-2 ri-3 gh5 a air and im5 par-2 tial jur-3 The onal Biase6.997 Juror S5 ld Be Q5 ioned As detailed in the o5 ti-3 on at a sec6 ond jur-3 or has alerte-2 the N4 ew Y3 ork im-3 es that-4 they too ha-2 deli5 ber-2 ated on t4 he cas-3 and were he v4 ictim-3 o5 hi3 ld3 hood sexual-4 abuse-2 That jur-3 or whose identit-3 i3 c3 urr-3 ently unk5 nown als-3 failed to discl4 ose he4 ir-3 vi3 c4 ti-3 mhood in response Questi-3 on The governm-4 en4 would ik3 to bury it-3 h4 ead in he s3 and a3 nd depr-2 ive Ms Maxwell of h5 ee also W3 arger-2 Sha4 uers U.S3 holdi-3 ng5 bef-2 ore-2 Pen5 a Rodrigue-2 was deci-3 ded4 that-4 jur-3 or bias so extreme h5 a4 almost-4 by def-2 in3 it-3 ion th3 jur-3 tr-3 ial ri-3 ght has bee4 abr-2 idged I5 nd when such a ase ari-2 se3 the Cour-2 ca6 consi-3 der-2 w7 hethe-3 the usual sa-3 feguar4 ds ar-3 or-2 are not suf-2 ficient to prot-3 ec3 he in3 tegrit-3 of t6 he pr-2 ocess-3 We nee-3 not consider-3 the questi-3 on h5 owever or those-3 facts a4 re not War-2 ger doe4 sn contro3 her-2 though if onl-3 b5 ec3 ause it was a civil and a rim4 inal-4 cas-2 Moreo5 ver-2 in thi-3 c3 ase uror N3 st-3 a4 tements-3 admit3 ti-3 ng to havin5 provi-3 ded false answer-2 duri5 ng voir-3 dire are-3 state3 ments he person6 all-4 made-3 to3 the ed4 ia and on soci-2 a4 medi-4 a in any cas-3 even unde-2 War-2 ger Case Document Filed Page abilit-3y to 3establi-3sh 4that-4 y5et se3cond juror was bi-3a4sed by ha-2vin3g been a v-2ict5im-3 of the ve4ry t-3ype of-2 crime-2 at issu3e in t-4h5is tri-3a4l.3 he cas-3es relied on by 5the gove-3rnm6ent are inap3posi-2te as no5ne r-2each the i-4ssu3e of-2 5whether-3 a 4ju3ror-3 was dishonest i-3n 5res-3p5onse t-3o vo4ir dire ques3ti-3o5ns r-2egar-3d5ing3 whether-3 they ha-3d bee3n the vi-4c4tim 4of t-3he same 4type of-4 c4rim4e at-3 i3ssue S5ee Resp at Im-3po5rtant3ly t-3he gover-2nment 5cit-4e4s onl-2y to3 case-3s where3 the only evidence t-2ha4t a juror-3 had 4en4gaged i-3n m3isconduct was a news ar-3ticle to tha7t ef-4fect He5re there are t5wo pieces-3 of evidence o5ne the-3 New3 York Time-3s a3rticle and t-2wo J4uror-3 No me-3di3a st-3a4tement that a6 second j-4uror disclosed t6hat t-4hey wer al-3so 4a 4victim-3 of chi5ldhood s-2exu4al a-3buse 3W4her-2e there 3is s4tr-3on5g subst-3antia4l and incontrove-2rt6ibl-3e ev3idence of-3 ju3ror-3 5mi-3scondu3ct a hearing on5 that-4 5iss-3ue 4is requi-3red United St-4a5tes Ste-3wart F.3d 2d 3Cir The government-2 pa4int-3s 4a par-3ade o3f 3horr-3ors-2 5to tr4y to di-3ssuade the Court-3 5from pur-2su4in3g thi-3s second c-3lear4 inst-4an4ce of-3 5a jur-4or ina6ccur-3a4te voir 6dire-3 state3ment on a critic4al i-4ssu3e in th5is c-3ase Resp at Yet si-3mp3ly 3aski-3ng the ot5her-2 jur-3o5rs one ques tio6n whether-3 t3hey were-2 the victim of-3 chil-4dhood s4e4xual a-3buse 3is not the int3rusion the-2 go5ver-2nment su4ggest-3s the 4ju3ror-3 appa3rently felt-3 comf-4ortab5le shari-3ng 5that-4 5inf-3ormat3ion 3both dur-3ing 3deli-4be4ration3s and a-2lso to5 the New York Times Ms 4Maxwe4ll3 is5 2entit4l-2ed to is3co4very The government-2 c4it-3e4s n4o authorit-3y for it-2s 4req-2ues3t t-3o forec4lose discovery in advance of the hear-3ing nor 6could t-4hey g4iven t-4ha4t such discove-3ry is often necessary t-4o 5est-3a4bli-3sh t-2h5e very mi-3scondu3ct at is-3su4e Th6e gover-3nm3e4nt co3mpl-3a4in3ts c-3en4ter-4 on5 their vi-3ew t4ha t-3he 4req-2u5est-3ed disc-3over-2y 5is either over-3b5roa-2d or vi-3o5lative of Rule The5 gover-2nment5 int-3en4ti-3ona4lly mi-2s rea-3ds t-2h5e defendant 4request Obviously Ms Maxwell woul3d be r-2equesting communi6cat-3ion3s that-4 oc4cur-2re7d outs-2ide of 5deli-4be4ration I-2t is al-2so 4sur-2prising t-3h5at t-4he gov4ernment think3s tha-3t 3there will-3 be a 3"high volum-2e of soci-3a4l me5dia m-4a4terial 5duri-3ng the relevant time4 fr-3ame 4i.e between when Jur-2or N5o sta-3ted he had cl-2o5sed a-2ll of his6 account-4s a w4eek bef-4ore trial 5and his Case Document Filed Page of comm-4un ica-3tions on Twit4ter-4 and 4Ins-2ta7gra-2m shortly6 af-2ter t3ri-3a4l J4uror-3 No deli-4be4rately mis sta-3ted the da3te of-4 h5is c-3lo3s4ing of-3 his T3witt-3e4r a-2ccou3nt and t-4he4refore-2 Ms Maxw3ell-4 is entitle-2d 5to disc-3over-2y 5in3 orde-2r t-3o p5rove that-2 d5eli-4b5era-3te fa4lse-3ho5od Ju-3r6or N4o is3 n4ot entit4le3d to di4sc4ov-4er3y 3in advance3 o3f t4he hearing Final-3ly 3for-3 5all-4 5the r-4e4aso3ns gi-2ven in t5he new tr-3ial 5mot-3ion 3and the letters ab4out se-3a4li-3ng 5Ms Maxwell-4 5maintains t-2ha4t Juror No shoul-2d not be provide-2d copy of-2 the questi-3onn5aire which is c-3urrently 6under-2 seal in3 thi-3s Cour4t 3Provi-2ding 3th3at que-3s4ti-3onn5air-4e wi4ll-3 on5ly3 dist-4ort th4e 4sear-4ch 4for-3 the trut-3h by 5all-4owing Ju4ror N3o to f-3urt-3he4r refi-3n5e his-3 story a4nd excuse-3s 4Of cour-2se if4 thi-3s Cour4t orde-2rs-2 a h4ea3ri-3ng Jur-2o5r 3No w4il-3l recei-3ve h4is questi-3onn5aire4 at t-4ha4t tim ut ala-3nce3d agai-3ns4t Ms Ma-3xwel4l constitut4io3nal right-3 to3 a f-2air and impartial jury and thi-3s C6ourt un4fl-3a4gging dut-3y t3o inves-3tigat3e 4Ms Ma-3xwel4l c3laim J-2u5ror-3 No req-2uest-3 5for-3 5th3e questionnaire-2 now pa4les in compa-3rison Conclusi4on Let t-3he4re 2be 4no do ubt The pr-3osecution r-2espon3s4e is-3 not 3cre-3d5ibl-3e be3cause the gover-4n5ment-4 has t-3he 4luxu3ry of-3 a doub4le s-3tandard a juror h3a4d fa-2lsely answ4ere-3d material vo4ir dire quest-3ions to f-3avor-2 Maxwell-4 5th3e gover-3nm3e4nt would not hesi-2tate 4to p3ros-2ecute the juror-3 5for-3 con4tem-4p5t or-3 per-2jur-3y Bu7t 3when as here a j-2uror fal6sel-3y answers6 voir-3 dire qu5est-3ions to f3a4vor t-3he pr-2o5s4ecut-3ion But al-2l 3tr-3ials4 per-2fect or-2 n5ot r-3equ4ir-3e a 3fai-4r 3and imp5artial-4 5jur-3y T6hat i-4s non n5egoti-4ab4le T6hat is t-4he p4remise and fundamental guarantee-3 o5f t-3he 4crimi-3na4l j-3us4tice system a system that was under-2m3ined by Juror miscon3duct Jur-2or No was not f-3air5 and im-4pa4rti4al His-3 prese5nce on t-3he 4ju3ry vi-3ol3ate-3d 5Ms Ma-3xwel4l Sixt-2h Amen4dment-4 5ri-3ght3s4 and constit-3u5ted s-3tructu3ral re-2ve4rs-2ib3le err-2or Th4is C4ourt-3 should vacat-2e 4the Case Document Filed Page of jur-3 v4 erd-2 ic7 and or-4 de4 a new tri-2 a4 n5 the lt ernat4 iv3 thi-4 Cou6 rt-3 shoul-2 ho5 ld3 an evi-3 den4 tiary hear-3 ing and exam-3 in3 all twelve-3 ju3 rors Dated Febru3 ary-2 Respect-3 fully4 subm-2 itted Je3 ff-3 re3 Pagli-2 uca Jef-3 frey Pa6 gli-3 uca Laura-2 A Menninger HA4 DDO-3 OR4 GAN FOR3 EM-4 AN4 P.C3 17th Street Suite Denver CO Phone Chris-2 tian E3 ver-2 dell CO4 HEN GRES4 ER LLP Thir-2 Avenue New3 York NY4 Phone Bobbi S3 ter-4 nheim Law O4 ff-3 ice-3 s4 of Bobbi Ster-3 nhe4 im Broadway Suite-3 New3 York NY4 Phone Attor-3 ney3 for G3 hisl-4 aine Maxwell Case Document Filed Page Certi-3 ficat3 of Ser-2 vice I he-2 reb-2 cert4 if-3 th3 at on F6 ebr-2 uar-2 I lectronically filed the oregoi5 ng Ghisl-2 ain3 Max-2 well R6 eply-3 in Support of Her M3 oti-3 on for-2 a New3 Tria with he Co6 urt-3 and coun sel-3 for the gover-2 nment Aliso-2 Moe Maur-3 ene Co5 mey Andrew Rohr-3 bach Lara Pomer6 antz-3 U.S3 Attor-3 ney Off-2 ice SD3 NY One Saint-3 Andre4 Plaz-3 a New3 York NY4 Aliso-2 n.moe usdoj.gov Maur-3 ene.3 co4 mey usdoj-4 gov Andrew.Rohr-3 bach usd3 oj.gov Lara.-2 Pomer6 antz-3 usdoj.3 gov Nico-2 le Si5 mm4 ons Case Document Filed Page A A 4A E0 A4 DE a qr?q rq qrCX HhL Kg lg d?a d6U a M3 flW y??S m/y t0 I F/Z V/j 1a qC KS u?v vZ O5 a qr rCX qC 0V I I dc rM?M rM 10Cy n??m?n k?o?h I A I w?!ac qr MCX 10Cy ITy qr M3 Ґ??1rA5R h?H?T3P K?z X?K H?o I Idc rM?M rM 10Cy f헊?f?Tz e?e:Aa I v"x i X5 EO5 5a r?q CX 9r Cy rq rqC M3 ş?:c p/p0 5H V)V 6T Y2 G5 qrM?r?qr?r9 q?10Cy rCX qr l1 X?l 3K fm?Q Z2f CX CX gT L??T 2E Cy 3P EM3 J4T L?h??M q?ᡚ?Y r??O?rJt CTX i P!e i I CTX rC YY I 1e 2j CTX X0T1i k3v Jh/e0h1 H(K W/Q0 CTX j?!k 5B r2 CTX A A A 4v z"p A A A0A?A AK CTX A A?!k CX qCX YCX i!d A fi8 l8 yuZ 6L pH m?c sP;0 6ZR Ni P0 0Q X(P0s s(s p0 Pp CTX qq dR B/J Va A N?q qr NEeD K?i N?M?qr EeD k??O I CTX U3 U3 U3 U3 S6 E"L I I I5K7C:I 9O U3 Cn qrr qr q??r?q 9qr CTX G5 qr CX rC l0 WS zN pf1 ODV8L?m jC1DxV CTX CTX A qr 10Cy rYY Ң??P?V CTX C"C rqM?rq?q?qr qr CTX YY Jb?C.y CTX CTX GG4 A A G5 C.C M??r 10Cy rq YY C?J?yO c/XE?lgF GM??H p?ݡG Dp9Oh CTX CTX CJ4 I J6 CJ4 CK qrrM?q qq 9/CX?o CX qYqr rC dd?Z c6S ttcx A CTX CTX 10Cy rq rqYY X?qiX:4 3J Db ZH uD-8 1g?BH I vS 7Oo7u E?K?O J6 UJP U0 UT??ʴ UT UT UT O(p U(u UF1 iZ qr?r CX CX Yr zKW:E A K5M P-M UW VW L1J KJ56 N/Q SQ rC 6J ߵl ߵl 5TZ w8ĥDG oj?K _4 N)?Y Hp pRqc?W26 vz?WBrz?ZB??3X H4 CTX A CTX X4 U5 P8 5D qr qr 10Cy qr YY Mo?ANp D01jJ 9F bzEV 4O 8V CTX O!o CTX KK AA qr A C5 qr rYY 1A?CC V9 a c?F CTX A G5 qr EeD?M CTX 9?rY 10Cy rq qY ȠX1 a f??B CTX 9F I CTX 6D N?qr rrqq qC O?J RmA??b"0 M?.F q?D B?G CTX CTX F4 d6P A F4 qr rYY 4G AV8 CTX UY UL0 U0 U0 U0 UF UF UFAGA UA UA UAL UL UL UL UL UL UL U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 U7 2EH GTU U/U OUoU UV G1 CTX TUV 1G 7A UA UAL X7 U7 U7 U77XL UL UL ULLYX KTX 8Y GJ A UMAT UD 7M GVW GF10 MWA LL MPM M?M 4M XY qr qr qr NEeD 10Cy qYY E2 GH l1 Pd h3V g?KIq V5kL O65S d_xKKU vV 5H p1 Z6 CTX U0 U1 CTX U0 U1 A0 1D qr qr 10Cy YY K??Kl 1B AMwv 1K F1 KV yW Gd T?H CTX CTX I CK M?qr K?SK?PQZ I IRZX 8YCX 10Cy qr CX kv zg S5kB??a iG wA CTX U2 6Y CTX U2 6Y I K,,j j,s 6Y P!p qr 10Cy qr YY G?O 9K mSd X0 9r?yal 1d bY0 XNf??qN D?J CTX P!Z b!o C,C qrM 10Cy qr8 I fX2 9R lO KV CTX Oo CTX A qr r?qr rq YY Lsy7H4 C,6E IL CTX U3 CTX J,O3_3xx qrM?r q?CX Y9/C 9CX CTX Y10Cy CX CX CX YC YY FV uTl bEWa ȓjJ-8 Gc G??Q9E 9Wq CTX CTX Up i I A 9_ qr qr YY D.X 7s F??Y bc3_c iH CTX CTX A qr 10Cy YY EMq 7H AY mK9Z BY A2 P6L N7 CTX CTX a I I i qr rC CTX CTX 7O I FMM qr qr i I I3 CTX Z6 I L(K4 P:u Z6P CTX y8 YY AKH 1U TH9?P Z??JQ hhc r?y1 CTX U2 CTX z2 KTX 8Y d6 i h,x N?rM?q?q?NEeD YY A n??D CTX r??r A N?qM??N rM a NiK 2J C5 C5 qr qr qr A..AA AA..AA AA..A A..AA A..AA A..AA GH I GH t?!TZ N?M?NEeD FXL J7Cl M8Bj k).d 0EtUd 1HrUi i N?M??NEeD 9DjX rTva a N?M??NEeD CkY qTva YY h?b CTX BA BA Up/p4 h7 PB pB?B AB N?M 10Cy rq V?C 3e TK??v9Y R5H CTX P6 p6 p6 N?M 10Cy qrY l4 EG 9F T?Zfb H??lC XLɿrJJ?FZ7 t?!TZ N?M?r se M7Bk cWM J6Dl 0HrWi 0FuUd CTX A qr rY 1A?CC V9 a N?M CTX a chlPTT Xx pt LH NJvrrbfFB z62nj RV ZzjZZjz c?F qr NX a a?q 8l?hb?r Iy?WEoM GoNLoH Mi P??jd??YP??o Cm7i?aH?uIBq?W?h9 I j)A a1 nne P/Tv ab WJ 6Td.By??e I pJ?J a C?k i dJtJ JJ g1 JOV DD cOO H2 8W R2F 9K H1?I??GM KA gI/mldL DwF?i iccF??NF tF F/F/V NGs VPXYVVF50Y PM wcff EhF 9G m3WC CR RA gI 1NN DLE D0D TDTDdt fd gd nn dTE0g NVU B6 4B WwM3WC 9_ EP I?V I JA i?J RG gI7tl_G gOwO HAA r?f hH fu?s9 9iY Xe2 L9 RA TI 7A p0p 0SL j?cY vv91 m3WC EhF J??CR RA gI X9 fu?s9 9iY Xe2 qr A J7J7J TAR ROO BE A 2DF 8H_Br K:T7 9kY 1D A01G LK7 I A A AGJ Z2 9JPO CzMd??UR??iMe v?i_?eB EF J??oqÏR ܐF G6 xy K/Cu bhe Xh?t 0CM B9 R2TG DI PD D7 0E H2 C0 I A WtJe RY X?r?זQL?х6o3 5cL.T??TR?eI 0E 9BI 1B BA GDD 1D QfAz C?eN 8V t??DM HL VN hZ H6 7I X9 a A
