DOJ-OGR-00021764.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page22 of 35 p28. Juror 50’s pretrial selective false answers only to questions that would have elicited his child sexual abuse, his post-verdict activity, and his patently false and contradictory explanations in the post-verdict hearing should have disqualified him for service as a juror in this case. B. Had Juror 50 Disclosed in Voir Dire his Traumatic Experience as a Victim of Child Sex Abuse, the Information Would Have Established a Valid Basis for a Cause Challenge At the hearing, Juror 50 disclosed the facts of his sexual abuse, which significantly paralleled the abuse described by the Government’s four key victim witnesses at trial. Like the four accusers, Juror 50 (1) was sexually abused as a minor; (11) was abused on multiple occasions over the course of several years; and (iit) delayed reporting the abuse. A267-268. Like the four accusers, Juror 50 was abused by two people who were friends and who each had participated in the abuse. A267. Furthermore, Juror 50 was not abused by a stranger or sexually assaulted by someone he did not know. Like the four accusers, he was sexually abused by someone familiar to him, namely his stepbrother. These similarities are significant and contrast sharply with other jurors who answered “Yes” to Question 48 and were not struck for cause, but who disclosed incidents that were not directly analogous to the facts presented at trial. In this situation, where Juror 50 experienced the same traumatic childhood sexual abuse that the trial victims had experienced, with many of the same surrounding circumstances, he was not capable of setting his experiences aside and DOJ-OGR- 00021764