NY - Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein confidante, arrested on Sex Abuse charges, Jul 2020 #5

[Dotta]

I dont understand 1 thing.

Who would be responsible for the mess with the jurors and possible retrial?
I guess the Judge, who seems to be ultimate authority in Court, no?
Other thing - I dont think it is fair that the accus

 

[sds71]

In a candid and insightful interview, Lucia and I discuss a range of topics: * sexual abuse and traumatic memory in the Maxwell case * differences between the US, UK and Australian jury systems. * and journalism's accountability function, even when it's unexpected or painful

Lucia Osborne-Crowley Discusses Her Ghislaine Maxwell Juror Scoop (lawandcrime.com)

 

[UK Girl]

In a candid and insightful interview, Lucia and I discuss a range of topics: * sexual abuse and traumatic memory in the Maxwell case * differences between the US, UK and Australian jury systems. * and journalism's accountability function, even when it's unexpected or painful

Lucia Osborne-Crowley Discusses Her Ghislaine Maxwell Juror Scoop (lawandcrime.com)

tbh I would say the Mail made it a bigger scoop than she did. They was the ones who especially made it clear by asking the juror about question 48 and stating it did indeed ask about sex abuse

 

[Dotta]

I dont understand 1 thing.

Who would be responsible for the mess with the jurors and possible retrial?
I guess the Judge, who seems to be ultimate authority in Court, no?
Other thing - I dont think it is fair that the accus

Sorry, sth happened with my post
It was sent twice and this one was shortened in the middle!
Ooops!

 

[Dontknow?]

Offer made to drop perjury charges in Ghislaine Maxwell case

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. government will agree to drop pending perjury charges against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell if her sex trafficking case goes to sentencing later this year, prosecutors said.

The offer was made in a letter to a judge filed jointly late Monday by the prosecutors and Maxwell's attorneys in federal court in Manhattan. The defense countered by asking that questions about the perjury charges be put off until the judge rules on its request for a new trial.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

So busted! A reformed jury selection process is needed because of these type of occurrences. It opens up debate as to whether this was a set up. I mean if you rush through the questionnaire without checking it thoroughly especially in a trial like this is he really qualified to even be on a jury?

I don't buy that it was a setup. If he wanted her freed, it would have been easier to vote not guilty. As it stands now, there is only a risk of getting a mistrial, not an acquittal.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

LOL, so busted. I was hoping they had that on video. I thought maybe they didn't since it hadn't been released it before.

It's possible he read the question wrong.

David, who admitted that he 'flew threw' the questionnaire confessed, 'I don't remember it being there but, um, I did answer, I remember a [question about a] family or relative or something, being sexually abused. I was honest on all my questions.'

 

[UK Girl]

I don't buy that it was a setup. If he wanted her freed, it would have been easier to vote not guilty. As it stands now, there is only a risk of getting a mistrial, not an acquittal.

Thats what I dont get either. Given that he said they couldnt reach a unanimous verdict it would been so much easier to not said anything and got a not guilty verdict if it was a set up

 

[UK Girl]

It's possible he read the question wrong.

he said there was nothing about sex abuse. The Mail then called him out on it and said about Q48 and he then changed his story somewhat and said if it was there he would have told the truth....which i assume he didnt actually do.

 

[Kemug]

There's no accounting for stupid.

 

[Cool Cats]

I dont understand 1 thing.

Who would be responsible for the mess with the jurors and possible retrial?
I guess the Judge, who seems to be the ultimate authority in Court, no?

Other thing - I dont think it is fair that the accused has to pay again for Defence, it is NOT her fault, is it?

Everything lands on the judge. His decision.

If she was broke she could get public defenders but now she will just keep paying. Remember she was still going to be paying for appeals which go on for years.

 

[Luna20]

Everything lands on the judge. His decision.

If she was broke she could get public defenders but now she will just keep paying. Remember she was still going to be paying for appeals which go on for years.

Has there been any legal forensics in her finances or is that off the table?

 

[Cool Cats]

Has there been any legal forensics in her finances or is that off the table?

None of their business, she's not up on financial crimes.

 

[Cool Cats]

Prosecutors offer to drop Ghislaine Maxwell's perjury charges if she is sentenced

In a letter to Judge Alison Nathan filed on Monday, the government said it is willing to dismiss two perjury counts against Maxwell if her post-trial motions are denied. If any of them are granted, prosecutors said parties should propose a schedule for further proceedings.

The government said it is prepared to drop the two charges "in light of the victims' significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again."

Maxwell, however, does not appear to be interested in striking a deal. Her defense team asked the court to delay establishing schedule for sentencing "because there is a compelling basis for the Court to overturn Ms. Maxwell's conviction and grant her a new trial based on the disclosure of Juror #50 during deliberations," referring to the juror who said he was a sexual assault victim.

The defense also said that requiring Maxwell to take part in the preparation of the Presentence Investigation Report - which helps the court come to a sentencing decision - while waiting for a response to her motion for a new trial would "adversely impact her Fifth Amendment rights."

The attorneys said any scheduling for the perjury counts "should be deferred until the post-trial motions are resolved."

 

[sds71]

Counsel for Juror Number 50 has submitted a motion to intervene and to be provided a
copy of the juror’s completed questionnaire and voir dire. The motion has been submitted via email to allow the parties the opportunity to propose and the Court to consider any necessary redactions. The parties are ORDERED to submit via email any proposed redactions on or before January 13, 2022, justifying any such request by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).

The parties shall respond to Juror 50’s motion on or before January 20, 2022.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.575.0.pdf

 

[Gardenista]

Prosecutors offer to drop Ghislaine Maxwell's perjury charges if she is sentenced

In a letter to Judge Alison Nathan filed on Monday, the government said it is willing to dismiss two perjury counts against Maxwell if her post-trial motions are denied. If any of them are granted, prosecutors said parties should propose a schedule for further proceedings.

The government said it is prepared to drop the two charges "in light of the victims' significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again."

Maxwell, however, does not appear to be interested in striking a deal. Her defense team asked the court to delay establishing schedule for sentencing "because there is a compelling basis for the Court to overturn Ms. Maxwell's conviction and grant her a new trial based on the disclosure of Juror #50 during deliberations," referring to the juror who said he was a sexual assault victim.

The defense also said that requiring Maxwell to take part in the preparation of the Presentence Investigation Report - which helps the court come to a sentencing decision - while waiting for a response to her motion for a new trial would "adversely impact her Fifth Amendment rights."

The attorneys said any scheduling for the perjury counts "should be deferred until the post-trial motions are resolved."

This doesn't seem like much of a deal to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[887sMtreme]

he said there was nothing about sex abuse. The Mail then called him out on it and said about Q48 and he then changed his story somewhat and said if it was there he would have told the truth....which i assume he didnt actually do.

If he had answered Yes to Question 48, the judge would have asked him about that during her interviews. She didn’t touch on it at all, suggesting he voted No.

 

[Chelly]

This doesn't seem like much of a deal to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Agree, the perjury charges are probably considered no biggie in light of the other charges for which GM will be sentenced.

 

[sds71]

Giuffre v. Maxwell

Now that Maxwell’s criminal trial has come and gone, there is little reason to retain protection over the vast swaths of information about Epstein and Maxwell’s sex-trafficking operation that were originally filed under seal in this case. At Maxwell’s trial, non-parties to this action, including victims, family members of victims, Epstein and Maxwell’s friends and employees, and law enforcement officers all testified in open court about information that has remained sealed from the public in this case. Those witnesses used their full names and the full namesofothers,exceptforthreevictimswhowereminorsatthetimeoftheirabuse
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1237.0.pdf

Plaintiff files this letter motion seeking leave to file her Brief in Response to Non-Parties 17, 53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 93 and 151’s Objections to Unsealing on the public docket with redactions. The brief contains information that may identify certain non-parties, and, in an abundance of caution, Plaintiff has redacted that information pending disposition of the non-party objections. Plaintiff intends to file the redacted version of the brief publicly on ECF and seeks leave only to file the unredacted version under seal.
Docket for Giuffre v. Maxwell, 1:15-cv-07433 - CourtListener.com

 

[shotgun09]

Giuffre v. Maxwell

Now that Maxwell’s criminal trial has come and gone, there is little reason to retain protection over the vast swaths of information about Epstein and Maxwell’s sex-trafficking operation that were originally filed under seal in this case. At Maxwell’s trial, non-parties to this action, including victims, family members of victims, Epstein and Maxwell’s friends and employees, and law enforcement officers all testified in open court about information that has remained sealed from the public in this case. Those witnesses used their full names and the full namesofothers,exceptforthreevictimswhowereminorsatthetimeoftheirabuse
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706/gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.1237.0.pdf

Plaintiff files this letter motion seeking leave to file her Brief in Response to Non-Parties 17, 53, 54, 55, 56, 73, 93 and 151’s Objections to Unsealing on the public docket with redactions. The brief contains information that may identify certain non-parties, and, in an abundance of caution, Plaintiff has redacted that information pending disposition of the non-party objections. Plaintiff intends to file the redacted version of the brief publicly on ECF and seeks leave only to file the unredacted version under seal.
Docket for Giuffre v. Maxwell, 1:15-cv-07433 - CourtListener.com

LOL! I so appreciate the post, but after reading it twice, I must say......HUH?

Not at all sure what that said