DOJ-OGR-00009122.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document615_ Filed 02/24/22 Page3of 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AR RE RR RRs Xx UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -V.- i S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. ec RRR SRE REET! x PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s motion for a new trial, dated January 19, 2022 (the “Defense Motion”). A defendant “is entitled to a fair trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.” McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984) (quotations and citations omitted). “A trial represents an important investment of private and social resources, and it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.” Jd. at 555. In keeping with these principles, a defendant seeking a new trial based on a juror’s statements during voir dire faces the heavy burden of establishing both that the juror deliberately lied, and that the juror otherwise would have been struck for cause. Id. at 556; United States v. Shaoul, 41 F.3d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1994). On the present record, the defendant has not come close to establishing that the extraordinary remedy of a new trial is warranted. For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny the defendant’s motion based on the present record. The Court should further deny the defendant’s alternative requests for extensive DOJ-OGR-00009122