DOJ-OGR-00021765.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page23 of 35 impartially deciding the case solely on the evidence at trial. See Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d at 472 (“Courts imply bias ‘when there are similarities between the 999 personal experiences of the juror and the issues being litigated.’” (quoting United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151, 163-64 (D. Mass. 2011)); Sampson v. U.S. 724 F.3d 150, 167 (1* Cir 2013) (“It would be natural for a juror who had been the victim of [the same crime] to harbor bias against a defendant accused of such a crime.”). Had this information come to light during voir dire, Juror 50 would have been struck for cause. Sampson, 724 F.3d at 167 (affirming grant of new trial when juror in a gunpoint bank robbery case did not disclose that she had been threatened by her husband with a gun); State v. Ashfar, 196 A.3d 93, 94-97 (N.H. 2018) (affirming grant of new trial when juror in child sexual assault case did not disclose that he was sexually assaulted by a babysitter when he was five or six years old); U.S. v. Torres, 128 F.3d 38, 47-48 (2d Cir. 1997) (affirming for cause strike of juror in a structuring case who did not disclose she had engaged in similar structuring activity herself); Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 1159 (10th Cir. 1991) (affirming grant of new trial when juror in murder case involving domestic violence did not disclose she was living in similarly abusive circumstances at the time of trial). Inexplicably, the Court held that, based on the answers of the juror at the hearing, he would not have been excused for cause, even if he had disclosed his childhood abuse during voir dire. The Court’s determination that it would not have 17 DOJ-OGR-00021765