DOJ-OGR-00009723.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 31 of 66 invidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993).'! As the Second Circuit held in Langford: We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate, for though the McDonough Court began with the inadvertent response before it, 1t stated that the further showing of cause must be made even after a juror’s “failure to answer honestly,” and it hypothesized that there could be various “motives for concealing.” Concurring in the judgment, Justice Brennan similarly stated that a second element—bias—should be required even if the juror’s erroneous response was deliberate. Thus, he stated that the proper focus when ruling on a motion for new trial in this situation should be on the bias of the juror and the resulting prejudice to the litigant. . . ... Whether the juror answered a particular question on voir dire honestly or dishonestly, or whether an inaccurate answer was inadvertent or intentional, are simply factors to be considered in thle] .. . determination of actual bias. Langford, 990 F.2d at 68 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 557-58 (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment)). The seminal case addressing a juror’s false answers during voir dire 1s McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. McDonough was a products liability action in which Juror Payton remained silent when the district court asked, “how many of you [potential jurors] have yourself or any members of your immediate family sustained any severe injury [in] an accident at home, or on the farm or at work that result in any disability or prolonged pain and suffering?” 464 U.S. at 550. After trial, it was discovered '| This caselaw uses “deliberate” and “intentional” interchangeably. 24 DOJ-OGR-00009723