DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document616- Filed 02/24/22 Page 28 of 32 For all the reasons given in the motion, Rule of Evidence 606(b) poses no bar to the inquiry this Court should conduct on Ms. Maxwell’s motion, primarily because Ms. Maxwell possesses evidence from external to the deliberations to substantiate Juror No. 50’s bias. To the extent the Rule might apply as a bar to limit certain questions, it violates Ms. Maxwell’s constitutional rights to due process and to confrontation as applied to her. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI; cf Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (2017) (finding the no-impeachment rule of 606(b) unconstitutional as applied to juror statements indicating racial bias). The Rules of Evidence cannot constitutionally prevent Ms. Maxwell from proving juror misconduct and vindicating her right to a fair and impartial jury.'! 3. The Additional Biased Juror Should Be Questioned As detailed in the motion at 21, a second juror has alerted the New York Times that they too had deliberated on the case and were the victim of childhood sexual abuse. That juror whose identity is currently unknown also failed to disclose their victimhood in response to Question 48.'° The government would like to bury its head in the sand and deprive Ms. Maxwell of the "! See also Warger y. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 49 & n.3 (holding, before Pena-Rodriguez was decided, that Rule 606(b) bars inquiry to “deliberations evidence” when seeking a new trial based on juror false statements during voir dire but recognizing that “[t]here may be cases of juror bias so extreme that, almost by definition, the jury trial right has been abridged. If and when such a case arises, the Court can consider whether the usual safeguards are or are not sufficient to protect the integrity of the process. We need not consider the question, however, for those facts are not presented here.”’). Warger doesn’t control here, though, if only because it was a civil and not a criminal case. Moreover, in this case, Juror No. 50’s statements admitting to having provided false answers during voir dire are statements he personally made to the media and on social media. Those statements are not “deliberations evidence” and not subject to Rule 606(b) in any case, even under Warger. 23 DOJ-OGR- 00009218