Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document570 _ Filed 01/05/22 Page1of3
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
My 150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364
FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
[email protected]
HADDON
MORGAN
FOREMAN
January 5, 2022
VIA ECF
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Souther District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: — United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan,
I write in response to the government’s letter of this morning requesting a hearing to
consider a Juror’s statements to various media sources that the Juror was a victim of sexual
assault. Doc. 568. The government’s request for a hearing is premature because based on
undisputed, publicly available information, the Court can and should order a new trial without
any evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court has held that to be entitled to a new trial, “a party must first
demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then
further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.
McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984). This standard applies
even if the juror’s conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. United States v. Langford,
990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (“We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only
inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.”’).
DOJ-OGR-00008804