DOJ-OGR-00010313.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 649 _ Filed 03/15/22 Page /7of12 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIA\ about how memory can be corrupted and rendered him incapable of objectively evaluating a central aspect of Ms. Maxwell’s defense. (Motion at 32-33). The Court should not credit Juror 50’s repeated assurances that he would not, and did not, let his past experience of sexual abuse affect his ability to fairly and impartially evaluate the evidence. Those answers were self-serving and are of no value to the Court’s analysis of potential bias. Indeed, the Second Circuit had recognized that in determining whether implied or inferred bias exists, “the juror’s statements as to his or her ability to be impartial become irrelevant.” Torres, 128 F.3d at 47. Instead, bias must be determined from the surrounding facts and circumstances—especially in cases where the juror’s experience closely tracks the trial evidence—because “the bias of a juror will rarely be admitted by the juror himself, ‘partly because the juror may have an interest in concealing his own bias and partly because the juror may be unaware of it.’” /d. (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 558). Here, the record establishes that Juror 50 was biased and would have been struck for cause had he truthfully disclosed his history of sexual abuse. B. Juror 50’s Answers to the Court’s Questions Were Not Credible and Further Revealed His Bias Juror 50’s responses to the Court’s questions at the Hearing were rife with contradictions and inconsistencies. His explanation for his false statements on the jury questionnaire—that he “flew through” the questions and did not see that multiple questions called for him to disclose his sexual abuse—lacked all credibility. And his assertion that he did not think anyone would find out about his sexual abuse after giving three interviews to the international press, including a video interview, about his service as a juror on the most widely covered case in decades was utterly implausible. Juror 50’s false statements and his explanation for those false statements, a DOJ-OGR-00010313