DOJ-OGR-00009733.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 41 of 66 answers to Questions 25 and 48 are reason enough to order a new trial because they relate to the core allegations against Ms. Maxwell. Moreover, if this Court orders an evidentiary hearing, it is likely additional false answers will come to light, further supporting the conclusion that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. In State v. Ashfar, the defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault based on the allegation that he touched the genitals of his 12-year-old client during a therapy session. 196 A.3d 93, 94 (N.H. 2018).'? The empaneled jury, however, included an individual who had been sexually assaulted by a babysitter when he was five or six years old. Jd. at 95. The juror had not disclosed this during voir dire and had, instead, answered “no” when asked if “[he] or a close member of your family or a close friend ever been a victim of a crime?” Jd. at 95. The trial court ordered a new trial, relying both on the juror’s false answer during voir dire but also his post-verdict conduct, which included communications with a female victim of sexual assault who wrote a book on the subject and the juror’s self-identification as “an advocate for people.” Jd. at 96. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. The decisions in Sampson and Ashfar support a new trial here. Like those cases, Juror No. 50 falsely denied having a personal experience strikingly similar to the conduct at issue in the criminal case. Juror No. 50’s experience as a sexual assault victim “raise[s] '3 Because state courts are more often the venue for prosecution of crimes involving sexual assault, state court decisions are particularly helpful. The New Hampshire Supreme Court “assum[ed] without deciding that McDonough provides the applicable analytical framework” and concluded that the trial court “sustainably exercised its discretion in finding the juror “was not impartial.” 196 A.3d at 97. 34 DOJ-OGR-00009733