Epstein

[Rico]

Lock her up!

[Redondo]

Juror's omission could set Ghislaine Maxwell Free

Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers are seeking a new trial after one of the jurors who convicted the British socialite told news outlets he was a sex abuse victim.

The new revelations "present incontrovertible grounds for a new trial," wrote Maxwell's attorney Christian Everdell in a filing, half of which was redacted. "According to the juror, his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell." 

[Blarg]

I'm not sure this is really grounds for a retrial. A person in a jury room making convincing arguments based on court testimony and personal history isn't necessarily unfair to the defendant. 

[Blarg]

He may have been a juror they skipped asking that particular question. Been on a couple of jury selections and not all jurors received the same inquiry at selection. Some were asked if they served on a murder trial, some not. Some were asked questions if the defendants hair or tattoos were a problem but not every candidate.

Random jury selection isn't random at all but if both sides had their questions answered while failing to ask one juror a disqualifying question, I don't think they can use that for a motion to retry. 

[Lou]

"According to the juror, his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell." 

This is the problem. 

[Lhalo]

12 minutes ago, cals said:

He lied on the written questionnaire as well as during oral questioning. 

Oof. What are the odds this gets tossed?

[Adam]

26 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Oof. What are the odds this gets tossed?

Should be 100% if we respect due process and right to a fair trial

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Adam said:

Should be 100% if we respect due process and right to a fair trial

But Blarg said...

[gotbeer]

@cals  Ok, cals.  Another legal question for you.  Sixth amendment is right to an impartial duty.  So can Maxwell now argue that her constitutional rights were violated, and get off scott free?  

[Lou]

1 minute ago, cals said:

I'm no expert on this, but I read that they have to prove he knowingly gave false info.  From what I've read about the dude he is he's some flighty homo that is claiming he just rushed through the paperwork and forgot he was diddled when he was 10 when they asked him. 

What about him discussing it with other jurors?

[Lou]

2 minutes ago, cals said:

Oh he remembered it then!

Just in time!

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Lou said:

"According to the juror, his disclosure influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict Ms. Maxwell." 

This is the problem. 

And the rest of the jury had to decide between everything they heard in trial to balance what he said to be convinced of his point of view that Maxwell was guilty. Anything any one of the jurors say can influence the outcome. 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, cals said:

He lied on the written questionnaire as well as during oral questioning. 

You never mention that. If so then, yes, there is definitely grounds for a mistrial. 

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, Blarg said:

And the rest of the jury had to decide between everything they heard in trial to balance what he said to be convinced of his point of view that Maxwell was guilty. Anything any one of the jurors say can influence the outcome. 

No, the jury is supposed to come to a verdict based on the facts presented at trial. 

[Jay]

20 minutes ago, Lou said:

No, the jury is supposed to come to a verdict based on the facts presented at trial. 

The jury is supposed to bring their life experiences into the deliberation process.

[Lou]

Just now, Jay said:

The jury is supposed to bring their life experiences into the deliberation process.

That's not in the jury instructions.

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

That's not in the jury instructions.

You have the jury instructions? Can you post a link?

[Lou]

Right after you post the link which states that the jury is supposed to bring their life experiences into the deliberation process.

[Jay]

In other words you have no idea what was in the jury instructions.

[Jay]

To be clear I don't think a juror should try to influence others with a story from his or her past.

 

[Lou]

NY State Law re: jury instructions:

 

"Evidence

 

When you judge the facts, you are to consider only the

evidence.

The evidence in the case includes:

the testimony of the witnesses,

the exhibits that were received in evidence, [and]

[the stipulation(s) by the parties. (A stipulation is

information the parties agree to present to the jury as evidence,

without calling a witness to testify.)]

Testimony which was stricken from the record or to which

an objection was sustained must be disregarded by you.

Exhibits that were received in evidence are available, upon

your request, for your inspection and consideration.

Exhibits that were just seen during the trial, or marked for

identification but not received in evidence, are not evidence, and

are thus not available for your inspection and consideration.

But testimony based on exhibits that were not received in

evidence may be considered by you. It is just that the exhibit

itself is not available for your inspection and consideration."

 

 

Life experiences not included.

[Lou]

11 minutes ago, Jay said:

To be clear I don't think a juror should try to influence others with a story from his or her past.

 

You said they're supposed to bring their life experiences into jury deliberation. 

[RallyMo]

Thanks, Lougle!

[Lou]

5 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

Thanks, Lougle!

 

[Jay]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Life experiences not included.

Not excluded either.

This is what I remember from my jury service:

Deliberations may take a few hours or a few days. While you and the other jurors debate the evidence in the case, you may all draw from your life experiences to make sense of things, but you're prohibited from using any outside resources, such as libraries or the Internet. Any questions will get submitted to the court for further clarification. It's considered "juror misconduct" to consider evidence that wasn't produced at trial and, if it happens, the judge will likely declare a mistrial, meaning the case will have to be heard all over again with a new jury. Similarly, a jury that can't come to an agreement about the verdict may be considered "hung," and the case would have to be retried.

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/going-to-court/what-is-jury-duty-like.html