DOJ-OGR-00021761.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page19 of 35 POINT II (Point IV in Appellant’s Principal Brief) THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN CREDITING A JUROR’S PATENTLY DISHONEST TESTIMONY OFFERED TO EXPLAIN FALSE ANSWERS TO MATERIAL QUESTIONS IN VOIR DIRE AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT HONEST ANSWERS TO THOSE SAME QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE NOT PROVIDED A VALID BASIS TO REMOVE THE JUROR FOR CAUSE. Juror honesty is the bedrock of the criminal jury system. McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984). Voir dire examination serves to protect the right to a trial by an impartial jury. It is designed to expose biases both known and unknown. The trial judge has broad flexibility in responding to allegations of juror misconduct, particularly when the incidents relate to statements made by the jurors themselves, rather than to outside influences, and do not violate the sanctity of jury deliberations. See FRE 606(b)(1). "A juror's dishonesty during voir dire undermines a defendant's right to a fair trial." United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N. Y. 2012) (citing Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 11(1933), vacated on other grounds sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015). A. Juror 50 Concealed Material Information in Voir Dire by Giving False Answers on a Juror Questionnaire and Then Lied About it to the Court in a Post-Verdict Hearing. Juror 50 was given a questionnaire to execute under oath. It contained a statement of the case, calling attention to the subject of sex trafficking of minors on 13 DOJ-OGR-00021761