DOJ-OGR-00021721.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page74 of 93 61 2021) (holding that district court “properly recognized that the initial question to be explored is whether the juror’s nondisclosure was deliberate or inadvertent”), vacated on other grounds, 142 S. Ct. 28638 (2022), rein- stated, 58 F.4th 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2023). Maxwell’s claim also fails at the second step of McDonough. The hearing established that Juror 50 harbored no bias, approached his jury service with an open mind, and was committed to deciding the case based on the evidence and the District Court’s legal in- structions. As Judge Nathan found, “Juror 50’s credi- ble responses [to questions asked of all jurors who in- dicated prior personal experience with sexual abuse] under oath at the hearing established that he would not have been struck for cause if he had provided ac- curate responses to the questionnaire.” (A.340). If Ju- ror 50 had accurately answered the questions relating to sexual abuse in the questionnaire, Judge Nathan would have asked Juror 50 follow-up questions during voir dire to determine if it would have granted a chal- lenge for cause. Judge Nathan asked those questions at the hearing, and Juror 50’s sworn responses made clear that he was a fair and impartial juror who did not harbor any bias and who would not have been ex- cused for cause. Nor was Juror 50 the subject of any bias, actual, implied, or inferred. After assessing Juror 50’s de- meanor, Judge Nathan found that he “repeatedly and credibly affirmed that his personal history of sexual abuse would not affect his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror ‘in any way’” (A.341-42), belying any suggestion that he was actually biased against DOJ-OGR-00021721