DOJ-OGR-00005361.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 367-1 Filed 10/22/21 all the evidence has been presented, the lawyers have delivered closing arguments, and I have given you instructions on the law. At that time and only then, can you begin deliberating, and only then can you discuss this case with other jurors and only other jurors in this case. To read, view, or talk about this case in any way before you retire to deliberate will be in violation of your sworn oath as jurors. 1. Are you able to follow these instructions? [If No/Unsure, question privately] Zz Do you have any personal knowledge of the charges in this case as they are described above?| Pretrial Publicity, 3, Have you read, seen, or heard anything about this case? 4. Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about this case, without stating what it is, have you formed any about this case? [If Yes, question privately] 5, Have you read, seen, or heard anything about Jeffrey Epstein? 6. Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about this case, without stating what it is, have you formed any about Jeffrey Epstein? [If Yes/Unsure, question privately.] Gs Have you read, seen, or heard anything about Ghislaine Maxwell? 8. Based on anything you have read, seen, or heard about this case, without stating what it is, have you formed any about this Ghislaine Maxwell? [If Yes/Unsure question privately. ] 9. Based on anything you have read seen or heard about the case, Mr. Epstein, or Ms. Maxwell, including anything about the criminal charges brought against Ms. Maxwell, would you be able to follow the Court’s instructions to put that information out of your mind and decide this case based only on the evidence presented at trial? [If No/Unsure question privately. ] Page 4 of 17 Commented [A1]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the language in green color font, proposed by the defendant, on the grounds that the proposed language is not appropriately part of voir dire. Rather, prospective jurors can simply be asked if they can follow the judge’s instructions. Selected jurors can and will be advised of the burdens of proof and obligations of the parties as part of the court’s later instructions to the jury. In addition, the instructions proposed are repetitive. Commented [A2R1]: DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The Government proposes numerous questions asking whether the jurors can abide by the Court's instructions on topics including search-obtained evidence, sympathy and empathy, investigative techniques used by government, the fact that others not charged cannot enter their analysis, and punishment. In order to empanel an impartial jury, it is appropriate to enquire of the jurors whether they likewise can hold the government to their burden of proof. Also, the government proposes to summarize all of the 6 charges and to counterbalance that proposal, it is important that the jurors understand that Ms. Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. Commented [A3]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to the questions in the “Pretria! Publicity” section proposed by the defendant on the grounds that the questions are duplicative of questions included in the proposed questionnaire. Jurors should be asked follow-up questions during voir dire as necessary, but need not be asked the same questions again. Commented [A4R3]: DEFENDANT RESPONSE: The defense responds that (a) the Court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of the questions on the questionnaire, (b) there undoubtedly will be publicity between the time the jurors fill out the questionnaire and appear for voir dire, and (c) asking the questions live when the jurors reactions, hesitations, explanations can be explored by the Court and observed by the parties will aid in the selection of an impartial and fair jury. See, e.g., 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 case and to identify what they already thought they knew about the case grounds for reversal of death sentence), cert. granted, 141 8.Ct. 1683 (Mar. 22, 2021), oral argument scheduled (Oct. 13, 2021); Patriarca v. United States, 402 F.2d 314, 318 (1* Cir. 1968) Gudge must elicit "the kind and degree" of each prospective juror's 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 bias" or "may be unaware of it”). DOJ-OGR-00005361