DOJ-OGR-00009030.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document613 _ Filed 02/24/22 Page 29 of 66 second, that the correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that, “[uJpon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const. amend. VI. In McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court recognized that “[o]ne touchstone of a fair trial 1s an impartial trier of fact—‘a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it.’” 464 U.S. 548, 554 (1984) (quoting Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982)). “The right to trial before an impartial trier of fact—be it a jury or a judge— therefore implicates Due Process as well as Sixth Amendment rights.” United States v. Nelson, 277 F.3d 164, 201 (2d Cir. 2002). In turn, “/v/oir dire plays an essential role in protecting the right to trial by an impartial jury.” United States v. Daugerdas, 867 F. Supp. 2d 445, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (granting new trial to three defendants based on juror dishonesty during voir dire and concluding one defendant, Parse, waived his new trial motion), vacated and remanded sub nom. United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) (reversing district court’s conclusion that the defendant Parse waived his new trial motion). It is bedrock constitutional law that defendants have a right to “a full and fair opportunity to expose bias or prejudice on the part of veniremen” and that “there must be sufficient information elicited on voir dire to permit a defendant to intelligently exercise not only his challenges ps DOJ-OGR-00009030