DOJ-OGR-00010341.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document653_ Filed 04/01/22 Page 18 of 40 sexual activity” and “sex trafficking of a minor,” did not cause him to think of his own sexual abuse. Hearing Tr. at 47; Questionnaire at 4. The Court finds that explanation to be reasonable. Last, the Court finds Juror 50’s explanation that his answers were made inadvertently to be the most logical explanation of his overall behavior. Shortly after trial, Juror 50 readily disclosed the fact of his sexual abuse in several media interviews in which he used his real first name and pictures of himself. Finding that Juror 50 intentionally provided false answers on the questionnaire requires concluding that he willingly disclosed his deliberate and unlawful deception in public interviews. The more likely explanation for Juror 50’s behavior is the one to which he credibly testified: Juror 50’s inaccurate answers were provided inadvertently, and he was made aware of his mistake only after he completed his media interviews. That explanation is corroborated by a video recording of Juror 50’s interview with the Daily Mail, which the Defendant entered into the record and previously cited in support of her claim for a new trial. See Maxwell Br. at 39-40. In that video, Juror 50 states that he was asked only about the sexual abuse history of his friends and family but not his own. When the interviewer asks Juror 50 about Question 48 in particular, he appears genuinely and completely surprised to learn that the questionnaire included this question. That moment of surprise is consistent with Juror 50’s hearing testimony that this was the moment at which he realized he may have made a serious, but honest, mistake. See Hearing Tr. at 15 (stating that he first learned that the questionnaire may ask about his own sexual abuse history “during [his] Daily Mail interview with the reporter Laura Collins’). The Defendant raises several arguments for why the Court should instead find that Juror 50 committed perjury at the hearing and that his answers on the questionnaire were intentionally inaccurate. The Court is not persuaded. First, the Defendant characterizes much of Juror 50’s 18 DOJ-OGR-00010341