DOJ-OGR-00021135.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page88 of 113 brother to be family (#49) and that he did not consider sexual abuse a crime (#25), his answers border on the absurd. A review of Juror 50’s statements to the media and hearing testimony reveals that, after he retained and was advised by counsel, he took great pains to downplay his prior sexual abuse. But his view of the way all victims recall memories — which are at odds with the defendant’s expert — revealed a bias that would have prevented him from serving as a juror, were he to have disclosed it. Thus, the court erred when it found that Juror 50 would not have been stricken as a juror even if he had answered the questions accurately during voir dire. POINT IV THE COURT CONSTRUCTIVELY AMENDED COUNTS THREE AND FOUR OF THE INDICTMENT A jury note sent during their deliberations (A230) clearly indicated that the jurors were considering convicting Maxwell on Count Four of the Indictment based solely on Jane’s testimony about sexual activity in New Mexico. The Court denied the defense’s request to give a clarifying instruction to the jury that the New Mexico conduct could not form the basis of a conviction on Count Four because it was not a violation of New York law. Instead, the Court directed the jury to the existing jury charge for Count Four. The jury ultimately convicted Maxwell on Count Four and the two Mann Act 73 DOJ-OGR-00021135