Posted on 01/05/2022 6:16:05 PM PST by RandFan
Ghislaine Maxwell will ask for a new trial after two jurors came forward to reveal that they were victims of sexual abuse and that their experiences helped guide other jurors to convict, DailyMail.com can reveal.
The announcement came amid a flurry of Federal court filings Wednesday following interviews given by juror Scotty David and a second anonymous juror in which both admitted that they shared their experiences of sexual abuse during deliberation.
David told first DailyMail.com and, later, other news outlet that he did not remember the question in the juror questionnaire which specifically asked potential jurors if they or any friend or family member had been the victim of sexual abuse or assault. Though he insisted that he had answered all questions, 'honestly.'
But according to Maxwell's attorneys in their latest letter to Federal court Judge Alison Nathan it does not matter whether any omission was intentional or an honest mistake. If it happened at all it is grounds for a mistrial to be called and a new trial convened.
They state, '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.'
A challenge for cause is when a potential juror is dismissed as they are deemed incapable of serving or being impartial.
Maxwell's lawyers continue, 'This standard applies even if the juror's conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional.'
'Ms. Maxwell,' they state, 'Intends to request a new trial under Rule 33 because the 'interest of justice to requires.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I believe this is the definition of, a jury of your peers.
This whole trial was anything but kosher to begin with so should we be surprised as this turn of events.
In the next trial, the prosecutor will call 50 witnesses who will name names.
I bet that will get the rich and famous to shut this defense team up and tell her to take the verdict.
-PJ
..... This whole thing was done behind closed doors ...... Sadly There are many High Profile People who need to be shamed into oblivion over this .... Unfortunately they won't ...... Sadly many of them ..... Control the system ...
Oh please.
Its a ridiculous claim.
I believe a juror lied about his association with BLM in the Chauvin case, too. Activist judges, activist juries. Justice no longer exists.
I agree. The trial was a train wreck. She’s guilty as hell but if the two alleged victims of sexual abuse lied on their questionaires, she may be entitled to a new trial.
A juror should have brought this situation to the attention of the judge.
I also want to know why the judge ruled that the prosecution did not name the customers of the girls. I’m sure it was to cover-up for quite a large number of very powerful public figures. My guess is that James Comey’s daughter was the prosecutor, so she was protecting them.
And why didn’t the defense mention that the prosecution didn’t name the customers? If there were no customers, how could they have been trafficked? I get that Maxwell and Epstein abused them, but if that was the extent of the abuse, where is the national sory.
I think Maxwell was the actual spy (just like her Father) who was managing and guiding Epstein from the side. Thus, she won’t be killing herself. Perhaps she will disappear like Epstein was supposed to.
Epstein was the glad-handing playboy and front/patsy for the blackmail/intelligence operation. Thus when the operation was exposed and finished, he became a liability for all sides, and everyone wanted him dead.
Its my theory and I’m sticking to it.
hmmm....perhaps she has grounds then.
I am not a lawyer. But I know enough that when these jurors were examined the first question I would have asked is “Have you ever been a victim of sexual abuse.” Something stinks about this. Looks like a set up to get a retrial and keep postponing everything.
Legal rules and procedure are not ridiculous. They protect all of us.
Their statement she deserves a mistrial is riduculous.
Ok, well what was the question they failed to answer honestly?
If the guilty verdicts are thrown out, so should the innocent verdicts be. Start over from scratch.
Whether she is guilty or not (she is), if the jurors lied on the questionnaire she is entitled to a new trial - especially since the issue they lied about is exactly what they used to persuade other jurors to convict.
So THATS how the fix was in!
Mistrial then no trial … tidy.
My understanding is the attorneys know more about the jurists then they do themselves.
Per the story, the juror said he did not remember the question in the juror questionnaire which specifically asked potential jurors if they or any friend or family member had been the victim of sexual abuse or assault.
It does not appear he lied. It appears he didn’t remember the question or skipped over it when filling out the form.
What information do you possess to determine if the juror is lying? I’m going on his own plausible personal explanation.
As for the horror of one juror convincing another juror of something while they all deliberate the facts of a case before them, my god, that is exactly what happens during normal jury deliberations. They act like its taboo. Nope, thats the entire point of jury deliberations, people discuss things and during those discussions people with stronger positions can convince those with weaker positions to adopt the stronger position.
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.