DOJ-OGR-00009877.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 _ Filed 03/11/22 Page 8 of 32 for turning a blind eye to Juror No. 50’s misconduct and the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury, and it then proposes a superficial inquiry that would make it all but impossible for Ms. Maxwell to meet the erroneously high burden the government asks this Court to apply. Yet this Court has “an unflagging duty . . . to investigate [Ms. Maxwell’s] claim.”” Properly understood and properly considered, Ms. Maxwell’s claim has evident merit. For all the reasons given in the motion and elaborated below, this Court should reject the government’s attempt to cripple Ms. Maxwell’s vindication of her constitutional right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury. The Facts The government’s response relies heavily on the fact that several potential jurors who admitted to being victims of sexual assault, sexual abuse, or harassment were not excluded for case. That is nothing but misdirection. Those potential jurors admitted to being victims of conduct nothing like the alleged conduct in this case. For example, potential jurors said they were groped or harassed on the subway, harassed at work, or touched inappropriately in a social setting. Resp. at 4-5. Juror No. 50, by contrast, has now admitted to being the victim of child sexual abuse— the very same conduct at issue in this case. And he has also admitted to responding to that abuse in much the same way the alleged victims in this case responded—delaying disclosure, relying on memories that can be replayed like a video, etc. This Court should not be misled by the government’s misleading comparisons. > United States v. French, 904 F.3d 111, 117 (1st Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). DOJ-OGR-00009877