DOJ-OGR-00009746.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 54 of 66 As discussed in Murphy v. Nogam, No. CV 14-4268 (KM), 2018 WL 278735, at *25 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2018), aff'd sub nom. Murphy v. Adm'r E. Jersey State Prison, No. 18- 2825, 2021 WL 2822179 (3d Cir. July 7, 2021), New Jersey courts have repeatedly invalidated judgments where a juror's inaccurate answer to a question propounded in the jury voir dire precluded a litigant from exercising a peremptory challenge. State v. Scher, 278 NJ. Super. 249, 263 (App.Div.1994), cert. denied, 140 NJ. 276 (1995) (citing Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (1957); State v. Williams, 190 N.J.Super. 111 (App. Div. 1983); State v. Thompson, 142 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1976)). Of course, the material omissions by Juror 50 were not made in New Jersey. The prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and the concept of fundamental fairness, however, are the same regardless of which side of the Hudson the misstatements occurred. In a very close, contested trial where the only real issue was the credibility of the accusers, the failure of Juror 50 to disclose his claimed victim status in jury selection cheated Ms. Maxwell of her ability to intelligently exercise her peremptory challenges and robbed her of a fair trial. In this case truthful responses would have revealed Juror 50’s claimed victim status. He would have been excused for cause on that basis alone and would never answered any questions in person. Even if Juror 50 had claimed on the questionnaire that he could be fair, despite his victim status, the result would have been the same. He would have been asked to describe to the Court and the parties, under oath, what he claimed happened to him, when it happened, the impact on him, and how he could still be fair. Had Juror 50 revealed to the Court, as he did to the media, that he believed that his memory “was like a video” and that he would advocate that the alleged victims here were credible, based on his own 47 DOJ-OGR-00009746