DOJ-OGR-00005335.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 367 _ Filed 10/22/21 Page13 of 35 Juror ID: Have you ever filed a criminal complaint? Yes No _ If Yes, please explain: Have you ever contacted any prosecutor office: State District Attorney, United States Attomey’s Office, State Attorney General? Yes No _ If Yes, please explain the reason? Have you ever reported someone for wrongdoing to your employer or a government agency? Yes No _ If Yes, please explain: Other than for a minor traffic citation, have you ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a crime? Yes No _ If Yes, please explain: Commented [A18]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the “Media Issues” section proposed by the efendant on the grounds that it is not streamlined in accordance MEDIA ISSUES with the Court’s Order. The Government submits that its proposed questions ask the jurors what is necessary on the subject but is not as unduly burdensome as the defendant’s proposal. Many of the questions are vague, confusing, and argumentative. Commented [A19R18]: DEFENDANT RESPONSE: A critical A lot Somewhat Not much Not at all purpose of individual voir dire in a high-profile case such as this is to ascertain what content the jurors have read and what they think they know about the case. The First Circuit's well-reasoned opinion Newspapers: in Tsarnaev, currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court explains why. It is insufficient simply to ask the jurors if they think they can be fair even after seeing media about the case. See, eg., How much do you rely on the following sources for your news? Social Media: United States v. Tsarnaev, 968 F.3d 24, (1* Cir. 2020) (failure to ask each juror to identify what content they had already read about the Television: case and to identify what they already thought they knew about the case grounds for reversal of death sentence), cert. granted, 141 S.Ct. : 1683 (Mar. 22, 2021), oral argument scheduled (Oct. 13, 2021); Radio: Patriarca y. United States, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1* Cir. 1968) Gudge must elicit "the kind and degree" of each prospective juror's Internet: exposure to the case or the parties” if asked by counsel); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221-22 (1982) (O'Connor, concurring) ; (prospective juror "may have an interest in concealing [their] own Conversations: bias" or "may be unaware of it"). Other: Further, as in Tsarnaev decision, much of the information shared on er: the media about Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein is either inaccurate or inadmissible, or pertains to persons and charges not before this jury. 968 F.3d at 58 ("while the media (social, cable, internet, etc.) gave largely factual accounts, some of the coverage included inaccurate or inadmissible information — like the details of his un-Miranda-ized How often do you use or access those sources: 0 Daily O Occasionally O Rarely hospital interview and the opinions of public officials that he should die") (citation omitted). It also included a number of individuals' personal opinions regarding Ms. Maxwell's guilt. -13- DOJ-OGR-00005335