DOJ-OGR-00009836.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 643 _ Filed 03/11/22 Page 38 of 49 not have questioned Juror 50 during voir dire about his views about Dr. Loftus or memory, and it would be inappropriate to do so now. Instead, the inquiry of Juror 50 should be similar to the inquiry the Court conducted of other prospective jurors who answered “yes” to Question 48 of the juror questionnaire. For example, during the voir dire inquiry of Juror 189, after directing the prospective juror to a blank version of the questionnaire, the Court’s examination on this subject was as follows: THE COURT: Based on your response, what I want to ask is if there is anything about what you describe here that would interfere in any way with your ability to be fair and impartial here? JUROR: No. (Nov. 17, 2021 Tr. at 532:11-18). Similarly, the following is the voir dire inquiry of Juror 239, who answered “yes” to Question 48: THE COURT: The first tab is just a blank version of the questionnaire that you filled out. If you turn to page 24, question 48. Do you recall your response to question 48? JUROR: Yes. THE COURT: Anything about that experience, in light of what I have told you about this case, that would interfere in any way with your ability to be fair to both sides? JUROR: There is nothing there. (Nov. 18, 2021 Tr. at 634:25-635:8). These jurors were not asked any further questions about their experiences as victims of sexual abuse, and they were qualified as jurors without objection from either party. Thus, while the defendant claims that Juror 50’s responses to the questionnaire deprived the Court of the opportunity to conduct a probing voir dire examination of Juror 50 regarding his views about the defense’s theories in this case, the record proves otherwise. (Def. 36 DOJ-OGR-00009836