DOJ-OGR-00010305.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 648 Filed 03/15/22 Page 15 of16 the victims in this case—rather, it is quite different. (Mar. 8, 2022 Tr. at 8:14-20 (stating that he was abused at age nine or ten by a family member, and that he disclosed the abuse in high school)). There is also no basis in the record for the defendant’s request that the Court infer bias on the part of Juror 50. (See Dkt. No. 642 at 37-38). Juror 50’s testimony does not “permit an inference that [he] would not be able to decide the matter objectively.” Torres, 128 F.3d at 47. Instead, Juror 50 repeatedly testified that he would be fair and impartial and decide the case based on the evidence at trial and the law as explained by the Court. See id. at 47 n.12 (“particularly when considering whether some marginal types of disclosed facts are enough to show inferable bias,” judge may be “persuaded by the force of the juror’s assurance”). Just as the Court properly elected to not exercise its discretion to infer bias where prospective jurors disclosed during voir dire that they had been victims of sexual abuse or harassment, so too should the Court decline to make a finding of inferred bias on the part of Juror 50. (See Dkt. No. 643 at 29-30). Such a finding is without any support in the record. The testimony given by Juror 50, under oath, makes clear that he was a fair and impartial juror. Because the defendant cannot establish either prong of the McDonough test, let alone both, her motion for a new trial is meritless and should be denied. 13 DOJ-OGR-00010305