{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "615",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 16 of 49\nand then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" Id. at 815 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556). The Second Circuit held: \"Clearly, this is a two-part test.\" Id. Specifically, \"in order to obtain a new trial, a defendant must show both that a juror gave a dishonest answer, and that the correct answer would have provided a basis for the defendant to challenge the juror for cause.\" Id. at 816 (emphasis in original). Because the defendant in Shaoul, as in McDonough, had failed to satisfy the \"threshold requirement\" of dishonesty, the Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. Id.\nIn so doing, the Second Circuit specifically rejected the argument that \"a new trial is mandated when the correct disclosure would have sustained a challenge for cause, regardless of the juror's honesty in failing to answer the question correctly.\" Id. at 815 (quotation omitted). As the Circuit explained, that argument relied on a \"contorted\" and \"incorrect\" reading of its prior decision in United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1993). Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815. Here, the defendant's argument relies in significant part on the very same reading of Langford that was explicitly rejected in Shaoul. Compare Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815, with Def. Mem. at 24, 27.\nThe defendant's reliance on two concurring opinions in McDonough fares no better. Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court in McDonough was joined by six other justices.8 That opinion, and not the concurrences, therefore sets forth the Court's holding. Cf. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (determining court's holding by reference to concurring opinions only \"[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices\"). And to the extent those concurrences may be considered in construing the holding of McDonough, they were clearly available to the Second Circuit when it did so in\n8 While the vote count is not always clearly listed on Westlaw or other legal research sites, the official version in the U.S. Reports indicates as much. See https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep464/usrep464548/usrep464548.pdf.\n14 DOJ-OGR-00009135",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 16 of 49",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.\" Id. at 815 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556). The Second Circuit held: \"Clearly, this is a two-part test.\" Id. Specifically, \"in order to obtain a new trial, a defendant must show both that a juror gave a dishonest answer, and that the correct answer would have provided a basis for the defendant to challenge the juror for cause.\" Id. at 816 (emphasis in original). Because the defendant in Shaoul, as in McDonough, had failed to satisfy the \"threshold requirement\" of dishonesty, the Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In so doing, the Second Circuit specifically rejected the argument that \"a new trial is mandated when the correct disclosure would have sustained a challenge for cause, regardless of the juror's honesty in failing to answer the question correctly.\" Id. at 815 (quotation omitted). As the Circuit explained, that argument relied on a \"contorted\" and \"incorrect\" reading of its prior decision in United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1993). Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815. Here, the defendant's argument relies in significant part on the very same reading of Langford that was explicitly rejected in Shaoul. Compare Shaoul, 41 F.3d at 815, with Def. Mem. at 24, 27.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's reliance on two concurring opinions in McDonough fares no better. Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court in McDonough was joined by six other justices.8 That opinion, and not the concurrences, therefore sets forth the Court's holding. Cf. Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977) (determining court's holding by reference to concurring opinions only \"[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices\"). And to the extent those concurrences may be considered in construing the holding of McDonough, they were clearly available to the Second Circuit when it did so in",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 While the vote count is not always clearly listed on Westlaw or other legal research sites, the official version in the U.S. Reports indicates as much. See https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep464/usrep464548/usrep464548.pdf.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14 DOJ-OGR-00009135",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "McDonough",
      "Justice Rehnquist",
      "Marks"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "U.S. Court",
      "Westlaw"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22",
      "1993",
      "1977"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 615",
      "464 U.S. 556",
      "990 F.2d 65",
      "41 F.3d 815",
      "430 U.S. 188",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009135"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely a memorandum or brief, discussing legal precedents and circuit court decisions. The text is dense and technical, indicating a formal legal document. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}