16a reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.””° 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.””’ A district court “has broad discretion to decide Rule 33 motions based upon its evaluation of the proof produced” and is shown deference on appeal.*° A Rule 33 motion based on a juror’s alleged erroneous response during voir dire is governed by McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood.*! Under McDonough, a party seeking a new trial “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.” The District Court applied the McDonough stand- ard, found Juror 50’s testimony credible, and deter- mined that Juror 50’s erroneous responses during voir dire were “not deliberately incorrect” and that “he would not have been struck for cause if he had pro- vided accurate responses to the questionnaire.”** In 28 United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1234 (2d Cir. 1983). 29 Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134. 30 United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353, 364 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 31 464 US. 548 (1984). 82 Td. at 556. 3 A-340 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court reminds us that “[tlo invalidate the result of a [ | trial because of a juror’s mistaken, though honest response to a question, is to insist on something closer to perfection than our judicial system can be expected to give.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 555. DOJ-OGR-00000079