DOJ-OGR-00010358.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document653_ Filed 04/01/22 Page 35 of 40 following a high-profile trial does not establish bias. This common occurrence is not necessarily nefarious. See Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 440. Even if Juror 50 were selfishly seeking his fifteen minutes of fame, his interview “would have garnered the same amount of media attention after a verdict of acquittal.” Jd. The Defendant next argues that “the victims’ testimony personally resonated with [Juror 50] in a way that jurors who had not been sexually abused as children would not have felt.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at S—6. She argues this is evinced by his explanation that the victims’ testimony inspired him to give post-trial interviews and “tell his story” despite his apparently normal reserve to discuss his sexual abuse pre-trial. /d. As noted above in this Court’s finding that Juror 50 is not actually biased, Juror 50’s statements regarding his post-trial view of the verdict and the Defendant do not illuminate pre-trial bias. A juror’s view of a case and defendant would necessarily change after reviewing thirteen days of evidence that persuaded twelve jurors of the Defendant’s guilt. See Stewart, 317 F. Supp. 2d at 439-40. It is unsurprising that such an experience might change the way a juror views his own life experiences. The Defendant also argues that Juror 50 is biased because “his own experience of sexual abuse shaped his beliefs about how victims’ memories of traumatic events work.” Maxwell Post-Hearing Br. at 6. The Defendant relies on Juror 50’s statements in post-trial interviews and his hearing testimony regarding his view of the evidence at trial. For example, Juror 50 noted at the hearing that he referenced his abuse in interviews “in order to talk to a reporter about jury deliberations” and to explain why he “‘believe[d] a certain way based on all the evidence that was provided during the trial.” Hearing Tr. at 22. The Court does not agree, as an initial matter, that these statements demonstrate bias. A foundational principle is that jurors rely on their common sense and life experiences to adjudge guilt. All jurors have no doubt experienced the recall of 35 DOJ-OGR-00010358