DOJ-OGR-00021529.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document EN 353 3536039, Page99 of 217 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 620 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 21 The Defendant urges this Court to resolve the motion on the papers, without the need for a hearing. Maxwell Br. at 28. But resolving the motion now would require the Court to accept as true Juror 50’s unsworn statements made to media outlets. Moreover, in arguing for a new trial based on the current record, the Defendant relies extensively on statements prohibited from consideration by Rule 606. E.g., Maxwell Br. at 12-14 (describing Juror 50’s statements in deliberation and other jurors’ reactions). The Defendant also urges the Court to reach factual conclusions that are unavailable on the current record; for example, that Juror 50 deliberately lied in failing to disclose that he was the victim of sexual abuse. See Maxwell Br. at 39-43. Finally, the Defendant cites no authority—nor is the Court aware of any—in which a court granted a new trial under the McDonough standard without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. As the Second Circuit has instructed, “if any significant doubt as to a juror’s impartiality remains in the wake of objective evidence of false voir dire responses, an evidentiary hearing generally should be held.” United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273, 306 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Boney, 977 F.2d 624, 634 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). The Court therefore denies the Defendant’s motion to grant a new trial on the current record. Il. Evidentiary hearing For the reasons outlined below, the Court determines that a hearing must be held regarding Juror 50’s alleged nondisclosure during the jury selection process. A. Threshold for an evidentiary hearing Because of the importance of finality of judgments, the threshold for conducting a post- verdict inquiry is high. A post-verdict inquiry into juror misconduct is conducted only “when there is clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence that a specific, nonspeculative impropriety has occurred which could have prejudiced the trial of a defendant.” United States v. DOJ-OGR-00021529