← Back to home

Document 222414226

AI Analysis

Summary: The appellate court affirms the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The court also addresses other issues, including the statute of limitations and the District Court's response to a jury note, ultimately affirming the judgment of conviction.
Significance: This document is a court filing that represents an appellate decision affirming the District Court's judgment of conviction against Maxwell. It addresses several key issues, including the denial of a motion for a new trial based on juror bias.
Key Topics: Denial of Motion for a New Trial Jury Selection and Juror Bias Appellate Review of District Court Decisions
Key People:
  • Maxwell - Defendant-Appellant
  • Epstein - Associated individual mentioned in the context of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
Unknown
Pages
2
Folder
IMAGES008

Full Text

Case222414226 Docketed110971,109017202244,383638687 Page40706526 3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial. We review a District Court's denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.27 We have been extremely reluctant to "haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences."28 While courts can "vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires," Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so "sparingly" and only in "the most extraordinary circumstances."29 A district court "has 27 See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). "[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance." United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the term of art "abuse of discretion" includes errors of law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or "a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 28 United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983). 29 Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134. 17 DOJ-OGR-00021864 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case222414226 Docket:10971,10901720224,38686867 Page:42606626 1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein's NPA with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY. 2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment was filed within the statute of limitations. 3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial. 4. The District Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment. 5. The District Court's sentence was procedurally reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. 26 DOJ-OGR-00021873

Individual Pages

Page 17 - DOJ-OGR-00021864
Case222414226 Docketed110971,109017202244,383638687 Page40706526 3. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Maxwell's Motion for a New Trial Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial. We review a District Court's denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.27 We have been extremely reluctant to "haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences."28 While courts can "vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires," Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so "sparingly" and only in "the most extraordinary circumstances."29 A district court "has 27 See Rivas v. Brattesani, 94 F.3d 802, 807 (2d Cir. 1996). "[W]e are mindful that a judge has not abused her discretion simply because she has made a different decision than we would have made in the first instance." United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 133 (2d Cir. 2001). We have repeatedly explained that the term of art "abuse of discretion" includes errors of law, a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or "a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." In re Sims, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 28 United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983). 29 Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134. 17 DOJ-OGR-00021864
Page 26 - DOJ-OGR-00021873
Case222414226 Docket:10971,10901720224,38686867 Page:42606626 1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein's NPA with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY. 2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment was filed within the statute of limitations. 3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial. 4. The District Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment. 5. The District Court's sentence was procedurally reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. 26 DOJ-OGR-00021873