DOJ-OGR-00008805.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document570 - Filed 01/05/22 Page2of3 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan January 5, 2022 ae] fot) (Oe) a i) Respectfully, it is not the proper function of the Court to contact the Juror and suggest that he retain an attorney or to secure the appointment of an attorney on his behalf. There is no indication this Juror either needs a lawyer or is indigent and qualifies for court-appointed counsel. Moreover, any such action would undermine the search for the truth and thus potentially compromise Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury. Ms. Maxwell intends to request a new trial under Rule 33 because the “interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Any submission will include all known undisputed remarks of the Juror, including recorded statements, the relevant questionnaire, and other non- controverted facts. It is clear to Ms. Maxwell that based on this record alone a new trial is required. If this Court disagrees, however, Ms. Maxwell requests that a hearing be scheduled ' The government cites United States v. Langford in support of its request for a hearing. Doc. 568, p 2. But the hearing in Langford concerned whether an honest answer from the juror would have subjected her to a challenge for cause due to bias, i.e., the second prong of the McDonough multi-part test. 900 F.2d at 68-69. Given the substance of the juror’s dishonest answer—that she had not been convicted of or arrested for any crimes when, in fact, she had been convicted of prostitution and arrested for larceny—her intent was relevant to whether she was biased. An affirmative answer to the judge’s voir dire question did not, for that reason alone, render the juror biased in a case involving controlled substances. DOJ-OGR-00008805