DOJ-OGR-00009747.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 55 of 66 experiences, he would have been excused, if not for cause, then as a defense peremptory strike. II. The scope of any evidentiary hearing Ms. Maxwell does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required because the undisputed evidence shows (1) that Juror No. 50 falsely answered a material question during voir dire and (2) that, had he answered truthfully, he would have been subject to a challenge for cause. If this Court disagrees, however, a formal evidentiary hearing is appropriate. When, as here, there is a plausible claim of juror misconduct, “an unflagging duty falls to the district court to investigate the claim.” United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). “[A] formal evidentiary hearing [is] the gold standard for an inquiry into alleged juror misconduct.” United States v. French, 977 F.3d 114, 122 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021), cert. denied sub nom. Russell v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2601 (2021). A. Pre-hearing discovery Ms. Maxwell requests that the Court authorize subpoenas to: 1. Juror No. 50 to produce: a. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness in this case; b. Emails or other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in this case; 48 DOJ-OGR-00009747