Posted on 01/06/2022 10:06:13 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In response to two jurors revealing that they were victims of sexual abuse, Ghislaine Maxwell will request a new trial. Their experiences guided other jurors to convict her.
The move became known during a rush of court filings on Wednesday after two jurors were interviewed, Scotty David and a juror who chose to remain anonymous. During the interviews, each of them admitted that they spoke of how they were abused with other members of the jury during deliberation.
A reporter asked David if he remembered the question in the juror questionnaire that specifically asked potential jurors if they or any family member or friend had been the victim of sexual abuse. He answered that he could not recall that question. However, he insisted he answered every question ‘honestly.’
Maxwell’s attorneys however argued that whether an omission was intentional or not does not matter in their latest letter to Judge Alison Nathan. Having occurred, it is sufficient ground for calling a mistrial and convening a new trial.
‘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,”’ Maxwell’s lawyers said.
A lawyer was appointed for David by prosecutors on Wednesday.
Challenge for cause is a process that allows attorneys to remove prospective jurors who are unable to render a fair and impartial decision.
‘This standard applies even if the juror’s conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. Ms. Maxwell… intends to request a new trial under Rule 33 because the “interest of justice to requires,” Maxwell’s lawyers continued.’
As Maxwell’s lawyers previously stated in an earlier filing, they have ”incontrovertible’ grounds for a mistrial.
A jury member in the Ghislaine Maxwell case is under investigation by the U.S. Attorney General after publicly admitting that he ‘flew through’ the juror questionnaire and ‘could not remember’ revealing that he had been abused.
The letter, which was filed with the Federal Court on Wednesday, came in response to interviews in which David discussed his confession of having been abused sexually as a significant turning point in their decisions.
In an unusual move for a juror, the prosecutors have asked that David be assigned an attorney, signaling the belief that he may have committed perjury or broken another law.
In an interview Wednesday, a second juror expressed the opinion that sharing his story led uncertain jurors to conviction.
Scott’s reports were called a ‘disaster’ by one expert, and Maxwell’s conviction may be thrown out in the near future.
Those words would constitute both perjury and ground for a mistrial, according to lawyer and legal commentator Neama Rahmani, who co-founded the California law firm West Coast Trial Lawyers.
‘This is why prosecutors cringe when jurors talk to the media after a guilty verdict because jurors may say something that may overturn the conviction,’ Rahmani said.
Maxwell’s defense team filed two letters on Wednesday, one of which described “an issue of pressing importance.”
The letters read in part: ‘It has come to the attention of the defense that one of the twelve jurors in the case (the ‘Juror’) has been giving oral and videotaped interviews to various members of the press concerning the jury deliberations.
‘These interviews have been publicly reported in several media outlets. Among other things, the Juror told a reporter that he disclosed to the other members of the jury during deliberations that he was a victim of sexual abuse and further described his memory of those events. According to the Juror, his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell.’
Defense attorneys for Maxwell have urged the judge to rule on this issue before considering any of the other motions.
‘Should the defense prevail on this motion – and we believe the law and facts are clearly on our side – it would render all other post-trial motions moot. Ms. Maxwell should not have to expend precious time and resources briefing other motions when this motion can and should be dispositive,’ her lawyers said.
In an interview with reporters, David was asked whether he discussed his own experiences of sexual abuse in the jury questionnaire he completed ahead of his selection.
David told reporters, ‘No they don’t ask your sexual abuse history. They didn’t ask it in the questionnaire.’
It turns out that question 48 in the juror selection questionnaire asks, ‘Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?
(This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)’
Jurors had three choices in which to answer: Yes (self) Yes (friend or family member) and No.
A reporter asked David about this and he said that he ‘definitely remembered’ filling out the questionnaire on the very first day of selection and he said, ‘I would have definitely marked, “Yes”. But I honestly don’t remember the question.’
‘I definitely remember a [question about a] family or relative or something being sexually abused. I was honest on all of my questions.’
Experts state that Maxwell’s attorneys could seek a mistrial or have her convictions quashed if David did not disclose his personal background.
It took two days to select the jury, with jurors completing a questionnaire on day one. During this stage, some jurors were dismissed while others were called for ‘voir dire’ so they could appear before the judge. At this point, both the defense and the state had the opportunity to interview jurors in greater depth.
A potential juror can be rejected without giving a reason by both parties who have a limited number of peremptory strikes.
Peremptory strikes are not needed if the judge agrees to dismiss a juror ‘for cause.’ This occurs when there is some reason that renders them incapable of serving as a juror or of being impartial.
This process would have been seriously impacted if Maxwell’s attorneys were unaware that a juror had a history of sexual abuse.
Regarding the voir dire stage, David told reporters that the question about his sexual abuse was, ‘never raised.’ ‘We went in front of the judge and there were all the lawyers in the room and that’s where they asked me some questions. They asked me what I do, what I like to do for fun. And if I can be fair and impartial and it was literally like 30 second long and then I was out of the room.’
After sharing his own story on day three of deliberations, David revealed that another juror had been abused or assaulted, but he did not elaborate.
His testimony as a survivor made the room fall silent when he revealed his history, and he said that his experience as a survivor helped him to better understand, and explain, the experiences of the victims, especially in relation to memory and defense expert witness Elizabeth Loftus’ testimony regarding false or implanted memories.
David said in an interview that he went through the questionnaire quickly.
In response, the government wrote to Judge Nathan, who presided over Maxwell’s trial and conviction, regarding David’s public remarks.
‘The Government has become aware that a juror has given several interviews to press outlets regarding his jury service in this case. While the Court instructed jurors that they were free to discuss their jury service with anyone of their choosing, some of the statements, as related in the media, merit attention by the Court.
‘In particular, the juror has described being a victim of sexual abuse. Assuming the accuracy of the reporting, the juror asserted that he ‘”flew through” the prospective juror questionnaire and does not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse, but stated that ‘he would have answered honestly.’
Following that, a court-supervised investigation is requested, along with scheduling a hearing within one month.
“””Just an odd question...is it possible they told the truth on the form, and made up the abuse discussion as fake? I just find it odd...to openly lie to get on the jury and not disqualify yourself.”””
Yours is not an odd question.
What I do not know is this.
If their abuse discussions during jury deliberations was fake, then I do not see a criminal act on their part.
Now they are saying in public they were abused, but what if that is fake as well?
What is the recourse????
Just like the "Jail Guards" who were supposed to be watching Epstein.
Not in this life time. Don't hold your breathe, you'll be needing oxygen real soon.
At least two jurors have chosen to shoot their mouths off before the trial/sentencing is even complete. First, I smell a couple of wanna be book writers trying to give themselves a push start. But then, even if they both mis-answered in jury selection a much more serious problem is that at least these two used their personal experiences to lobby for conviction in the jury room.
That’s a bleeping no-no. They are commanded to keep their deliberation focused on the presented evidence. The foreman should have shut them up when they started campaigning their personal stuff, assuming it happened that way. And remember-—this has to be settled before SENTENCING.
And I still want to know who Epstein’s customers were.Why do you need to know?
“Why do you need to know?
Who are you?
How will knowing change your life?”
Why are you protecting child rapists?
Are you one of them?
How will protecting these child rapists serve your interests?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.