Sounds like he basically declared himself an expert witness and gave testimony to the jury. I am disgusted by Maxwell but the lawyers should fight for a mistrial.
If I am to be tried by a jury of my peers, I would expect my peers to arrive with some relevant life experience that might inform their decision. I don’t think we should declare a mistrial just because a knowledgeable citizen happened to make it on to the jury.
Was the juror lying during Vor Dire or was he lying during deliberations? Is this guy a Clinton plant, there to secure a mistrial?
The fix is in?
And so it begins.
We all knew long ago how it will end.
And so goes the formerly respected American justice system.
Reuters knew fully well that this could lead to a mistrial. I’ll bet they were giddy in the newsroom when they got this guy to admit it. All MSM are slimy sleazeballs.
In one of my journeys into jury pools the prosecution sat at their table with a laptop and they questioned the jury like this: "Mr. Smith, can you tell us what happened on the night of, June 13, 1996"? They did this to 5-6 guys but the first guy was absolutely stunned. All of them said something like, "I was drunk and did something stupid ...".
How can she be convicted of trafficking minors, if she had no customers who had sex with them?
OR-— was PAID/bought to do just this, to taint the jury by the defense operatives “getting” to them in voir dire. Note that the moron juror— “can’t remember if he revealed” during voir dire! What the hell does that tidbit do except tell the public— since voir dire proceedings are done WITH an on the record court reporter. Everything said is known, including the judges acceptance of the defense and prosecution’s acceptance of the jury member selection.
This is a ploy— because certainly the reveal in a prospective juror of prior abuse would be dis-allowed by both defense and prosecution attorneys as a jury member.