DOJ-OGR-00020954.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 58_02/28/2023, 3475901, Page128 of 221 A-328 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 653 Filed 04/01/22 Page 11 of 40 was impossible he would be selected as a final juror. /d. at 11-13, 18. He testified that his personal history of sexual abuse was not something he typically thought about and that it had not crossed his mind as he filled out the questionnaire. The Court asked follow-up questions consistent with those asked of prospective jurors during voir dire who responded affirmatively to Questions 25, 48, and 49 on their questionnaires, including those questions proposed by Defense counsel at that stage during trial. Further, the Court asked Juror 50 about several potential inconsistencies in his testimony. The Court did not permit questions that were inconsistent with the process as it played out in voir dire or otherwise irrelevant or redundant. Ultimately, Juror 50 testified that his experience would not affect his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. He affirmed that he did not harbor any bias against the Defendant nor in favor of the Government. He asserted that he would be able to assess the credibility of witnesses alleging sexual abuse. And he affirmed that the subject matter of the case would not upset him in such a way that would distract him from his duty as a juror, nor would he be thinking about his experience in a way that would prevent him from being fair or impartial. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on Juror 50’s testimony, which the parties simultaneously submitted on March 15, 2022. Dkt. Nos. 648, 649.7 Il. LEGAL STANDARD The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants “the right to a speedy and public trial[] by an impartial jury.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. An impartial jury is one “capable and ? On April 1, 2022, the Defendant requested the Court stay its ruling pending the release of a documentary in which Juror 50 is expected to appear. Dkt. No. 651. That request is denied. The Defendant provides no basis to conclude that the interview would affect the Court’s analysis or conclusion having held an evidentiary hearing. 11 DOJ-OGR- 00020954