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

[sds71]

In trying to assess the impact of the jury room disclosures that Juror 50 described in the news media — and potentially those of the second juror as well — the judge is likely to be blocked by one of the legal system’s most stringent and time-honored rules: She cannot ask the jurors what happened during their deliberations. And the jurors are not allowed to tell her.

Even though jurors may speak to the news media or write about their experiences, the Supreme Court has held that any jurors’ statements or testimony about the inner workings of deliberations cannot be used by lawyers challenging a verdict, or by a judge deciding whether to overturn it.
The only exception, the Supreme Court has said, is where overt statements during deliberations show a juror was motivated by racial animus in voting to convict….

Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University School of Law, said that if either juror had failed to reveal their abuse history in the questionnaire, Judge Nathan would want to know the answer to the question that “she would have asked” had the jurors filled out the questionnaires accurately.
“If it was intentional, that counts against the juror — that raises suspicion,” Professor Gillers said.
“If it was a mistake or overlooked, then that counts in favor of crediting the juror if he now says it didn’t affect my deliberation at all.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-juror.html?smid=tw-share
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Bid for a New Trial Faces a Major Hurdle

 

[Cool Cats]

Ghislaine Maxwell to formally request new trial over concerns about juror

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers are expected on Wednesday to formally request that the British socialite's sex abuse conviction be overturned, due to a juror's possible failure to disclose before the trial that he was sexually abused as a child.

 

[Cool Cats]

A former Buckingham Palace royal protection officer says he suspected Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew had an 'intimate relationship,' according to a new documentary

 

[sds71]

Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

Dear Judge Nathan:
Today, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell filed her Motion for a New Trial (the “Motion”) and accompanying exhibits under seal.
For the reasons set forth in the Motion, we request that all submissions pertaining to Juror No. 50 remain under seal until the Court rules on the Motion

BOBBI C. STERNHEIM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612/gov.uscourts.nysd.539612.580.0.pdf

 

[Dotta]

"One incident is random,
Two - a coincidence,
But three - a conspiracy".

Mercedes Lackey


Let's just wait and see.

 

[Chelly]

"One incident is random,
Two - a coincidence,
But three - a conspiracy".

Mercedes Lackey


Let's just wait and see.

Well, we have the absurdity of new trial motions for GM, added to the silliness of titles removal for the man formerly called HRH P Andrew.

Rather enjoying the waiting and seeing.

 

[Dotta]

Well, we have the absurdity of new trial motions for GM, added to the silliness of titles removal for the man formerly called HRH P Andrew.

Rather enjoying the waiting and seeing.

Oh but you forgot about somebody!
JE himself!

 

[otto]

In trying to assess the impact of the jury room disclosures that Juror 50 described in the news media — and potentially those of the second juror as well — the judge is likely to be blocked by one of the legal system’s most stringent and time-honored rules: She cannot ask the jurors what happened during their deliberations. And the jurors are not allowed to tell her.

Even though jurors may speak to the news media or write about their experiences, the Supreme Court has held that any jurors’ statements or testimony about the inner workings of deliberations cannot be used by lawyers challenging a verdict, or by a judge deciding whether to overturn it.
The only exception, the Supreme Court has said, is where overt statements during deliberations show a juror was motivated by racial animus in voting to convict….

Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal ethics at New York University School of Law, said that if either juror had failed to reveal their abuse history in the questionnaire, Judge Nathan would want to know the answer to the question that “she would have asked” had the jurors filled out the questionnaires accurately.
“If it was intentional, that counts against the juror — that raises suspicion,” Professor Gillers said.
“If it was a mistake or overlooked, then that counts in favor of crediting the juror if he now says it didn’t affect my deliberation at all.”
Ghislaine Maxwell’s Bid for a New Trial Faces a Major Hurdle

Regarding this point:

“If it was a mistake or overlooked, then that counts in favor of crediting the juror if he now says it didn’t affect my deliberation at all.”
​

... it sounds like the juror cannot state that omitting information about his abuse history "did not affect his deliberations at all." His claim is that the omitted information was used to influence jurors regarding opinion about accuracy of witness testimony, specifically claiming that memory problems (e.g.: inconsistent testimony) are to be expected in abuse victims.

"The anonymous juror told The Independent and The Daily Mail that his experience helped him convince some jurors that a victim's imperfect memory of sex abuse doesn't mean it didn't happen." (link)
​

I will not be surprised if the appeal is denied, but this does stand out as a strong point for appeal.

 

[sds71]

In a September 2021 ruling, Preska said there were 16 "non-party objectors," or people not party to the suit who objected to their identities being released. Preska decided to deal with eight of them first, followed by the next eight.
US District Judge Loretta Preska now will have to rule on how to handle those eight Does and how to balance the public's interest with their privacy rights.
Giuffre and Maxwell were ordered to respond no later than two weeks after the end of Maxwell's criminal trial. The trial ended in late December, and the parties dutifully filed their responses last week.
The Miami Herald, which has closely covered the Epstein saga, may file a responsive brief no later than two weeks after that, the ruling states. That would correlate to January 26.
Non-party objectors may file a reply to those briefs a week after that. The parties shall then file any replies no later than two weeks after that, the ruling states, putting the timetable into mid-February. A ruling would then come some time after that.

What's next for the John Does in Ghislaine Maxwell's settled lawsuit - CNN

 

[RickshawFan]

Responding to the general drift…
1. What the juror says might not be what the rest of the jury experienced from him.
2. He may be narcissistically inflating his role.
3. His own memory might be gappy about a whole lot of stuff for entirely separate reasons.
4. He may be prone to dissociation if he was traumatized as a child.
5. In the moment of filling out the questionnaire, he might have been in denial about his own history.
6. In the moment of filling out the questionnaire, he might not have known about his abuse history.
7. He could be a ball of contradictions, and all could be real to him. Such is the effect of trauma.
8. Sex abuse victims can be very conflicted about the abuse. It’s complicated.
9. He might be lying.
10. He might be lying about a part of it.

IMO All this discussion about sex abuse and the questionnaire doesn’t take into account the nature of trauma and the complexity of the experience.

Also, I doubt they could seat a jury with members who don’t have friends or relatives with a history of sex abuse or rape. The percentage of the US population who do must be colossal. I can’t believe that question was even allowed on the jury questionnaire.

A third of Americans are sex abuse victims. Approximately a Third of Americans Have Been the Victim of Sexual Violence | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

 

[mickey2942]

Responding to the general drift…
1. What the juror says might not be what the rest of the jury experienced from him.
2. He may be narcissistically inflating his role.
3. His own memory might be gappy about a whole lot of stuff for entirely separate reasons.
4. He may be prone to dissociation if he was traumatized as a child.
5. In the moment of filling out the questionnaire, he might have been in denial about his own history.
6. In the moment of filling out the questionnaire, he might not have known about his abuse history.
7. He could be a ball of contradictions, and all could be real to him. Such is the effect of trauma.
8. Sex abuse victims can be very conflicted about the abuse. It’s complicated.
9. He might be lying.
10. He might be lying about a part of it.

IMO All this discussion about sex abuse and the questionnaire doesn’t take into account the nature of trauma and the complexity of the experience.

Also, I doubt they could seat a jury with members who don’t have friends or relatives with a history of sex abuse or rape. The percentage of the US population who do must be colossal. I can’t believe that question was even allowed on the jury questionnaire.

A third of Americans are sex abuse victims. Approximately a Third of Americans Have Been the Victim of Sexual Violence | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

This is very true. And many of the victims don't even acknowledge it. Or repressed the entire event.

And then, there are people who have had a traumatic experience and would not acknowledge it or divulge it at all. Ever. To anyone, and definitely not on a random piece of paper.

 

[escape2sc]

He is her son. The police looked at the case multiple times and didnt press charges. She loves him and wants to believe he is innocent any mother would especially when he hasnt even been charged with anything in a court of law. What was she meant to do? Kick him out of his family home? the woman is what 95? was dealing with a ill husband who has now died, other family issues and also she seems to have health issues now too. My sympathies are 100% with her.

It is possible that the police did not press charges because at the time the law in the UK did not consider a 17 year old sex trafficking victims being legally unable to give consent. Looking at UK law for 2001 when Virginia claims she had sex with Andrew in the UK .

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on the 1 May 2004 and applies to all offences committed on or after that date.

UK Law Prior to 1 May 2004
Indecency with Children Act 1960
02 July 1960 Indecency with Children Act came into force
01 October 1997 – Maximum sentence for offences against a child under 14 increased from 2 years to 10 years
11 January 2001 – Section 1 Indecency amended to a child under 16 years (previously under 14 years)

UK Law After 1 May 2004
Offences against children under 18
Sections 16 – 24 Abuse of position of trust
Key points
The primary purpose of the abuse of trust provisions is to provide protection for young people aged 16 and 17, who are considered to be particularly vulnerable to exploitation by those who hold a position of trust or authority in their lives.
These offences are primarily concerned with the child giving ostensible consent to the activity, but that consent is not relevant because of their particular relationship with the abuser.
Positions of trust are defined in Sections 21 and 22 SOA 2003.
The prohibited sexual behaviours in sections 16 - 19 are identical to those prohibited by sections 9 – 12 (i.e. sexual activity with a child; causing a child to engage in sexual activity; sexual activity in the presence of a child; and causing a child to watch a sexual act).
See section 23 for the defence for spouses and civil partners and section 24 for sexual relationships which pre dated the position of trust.
These offences are either way and attract a maximum sentence of 5 years on indictment.
Charging practice
These offences are designed to protect 16 and 17 year olds from sexual relationships which would not be criminal but for the suspect’s position of trust in relation to the complainant.

Rape and Sexual Offences - Chapter 7: Key Legislation and Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

 

[UK Girl]

It is possible that the police did not press charges because at the time the law in the UK did not consider a 17 year old sex trafficking victims being legally unable to give consent. Looking at UK law for 2001 when Virginia claims she had sex with Andrew in the UK .

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on the 1 May 2004 and applies to all offences committed on or after that date.

Key points
The primary purpose of the abuse of trust provisions is to provide protection for young people aged 16 and 17, who are considered to be particularly vulnerable to exploitation by those who hold a position of trust or authority in their lives.
These offences are primarily concerned with the child giving ostensible consent to the activity, but that consent is not relevant because of their particular relationship with the abuser.
Positions of trust are defined in Sections 21 and 22 SOA 2003.
The prohibited sexual behaviours in sections 16 - 19 are identical to those prohibited by sections 9 – 12 (i.e. sexual activity with a child; causing a child to engage in sexual activity; sexual activity in the presence of a child; and causing a child to watch a sexual act).
See section 23 for the defence for spouses and civil partners and section 24 for sexual relationships which pre dated the position of trust.
These offences are either way and attract a maximum sentence of 5 years on indictment.
Charging practice
These offences are designed to protect 16 and 17 year olds from sexual relationships which would not be criminal but for the suspect’s position of trust in relation to the complainant.

Rape and Sexual Offences - Chapter 7: Key Legislation and Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

the part about providing protection by those who hold a position of trust wouldnt actually apply to Andrew I dont think. That is generally for teachers etc

 

[UK Girl]

Responding to the general drift…
1. What the juror says might not be what the rest of the jury experienced from him.
2. He may be narcissistically inflating his role.
3. His own memory might be gappy about a whole lot of stuff for entirely separate reasons.
4. He may be prone to dissociation if he was traumatized as a child.
5. In the moment of filling out the questionnaire, he might have been in denial about his own history.
6. In the moment of filling out the questionnaire, he might not have known about his abuse history.
7. He could be a ball of contradictions, and all could be real to him. Such is the effect of trauma.
8. Sex abuse victims can be very conflicted about the abuse. It’s complicated.
9. He might be lying.
10. He might be lying about a part of it.

IMO All this discussion about sex abuse and the questionnaire doesn’t take into account the nature of trauma and the complexity of the experience.

Also, I doubt they could seat a jury with members who don’t have friends or relatives with a history of sex abuse or rape. The percentage of the US population who do must be colossal. I can’t believe that question was even allowed on the jury questionnaire.

A third of Americans are sex abuse victims. Approximately a Third of Americans Have Been the Victim of Sexual Violence | Smart News | Smithsonian Magazine

except he said himself that had he seen the question he would have answered truthfully so its not that he is prone to disassociation or that his memory is gappy...he even answered too quickly and didnt look at what he was doing or basically lied for whatever reason

 

[escape2sc]

the part about providing protection by those who hold a position of trust wouldnt actually apply to Andrew I dont think. That is generally for teachers etc

I think it is reasonable to assume that Andrew - son of the Queen of the UK and Head of the Church of England - would easily be seen as someone a 17 year old would view as a person of authority and in a position of trust

 

[Cool Cats]

Ghislaine Maxwell witness refuses to take the stand again forcing prosecution to bring new case

A victim who testified in Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial says she likely would not do so again if the British heiress was to be granted a second hearing.

That would force New York prosecutions to either put on a new case without one of their four witnesses, or find other alleged victims.

One former prosecutor said speculated that the US government could put on an even stronger case if it was given a second shot, having learned lessons from the first.

That view was echoed by Brad Edwards, a lawyer who represents a number of Epstein victims.

"What has happened since the guilty verdict is more people have come forward, willing to share their stories about Ghislaine and testify, so I don't think a new trial would go any better for her. In fact, I think it would go worse for her," he told Insider.

"I'm not ultimately that worried about the end result.”

 

[escape2sc]

Regardless if Andrew would have been considered a person of trust according to the 2003 law, the incident happened in 2001 and the 2001 UK law did not provide protection for sex trafficked victims above the age of 16..no law of protection equals no crime for the police to investigate.
Thank goodness the law is different in the US and Maxwell has to answer for her actions via criminal trial and Virginia can seek justice from those that abused her.

 

[UK Girl]

I think it is reasonable to assume that Andrew - son of the Queen of the UK and Head of the Church of England - would easily be seen as someone a 17 year old would view as a person of authority and in a position of trust

Perhaps but that would very loosely speaking. Its people normally that the person would be in direct contact with and they misused that position ie lecturer dr dentist etc...not some random Prince....and yes i agree its good she can seek justice from people...that allegedly abused her.

 

[Dotta]

Is it possible that the retrial will be without Jury?
So called "bench trial" by Judge only?

 

[Cool Cats]

Is it possible that the retrial will be without Jury?
So called "bench trial" by Judge only?

Defense would have to ask for that and I believe the chances of that are nil.

Better chance with 12 than with 1.

Disadvantages to a Bench Trial
Choosing a bench trial doesn't come without risks. Here are some of the disadvantages to bringing the case before a judge and not a jury.

• One person decides. At a bench trial, the prosecutor has to convince only one person of a defendant's guilt, while at a jury trial, the burden increases to convincing all 12 jurors. Put another way, the defendant may "win" if only one juror holds out for acquittal (leading to a mistrial and perhaps a good plea bargain or a dismissal of the charges).

• The judge knows all the evidence. At either a jury or bench trial, the judge decides what evidence will be admitted. Prejudicial, irrelevant, or untrustworthy evidence is excluded, and ideally, the jury never hears it. But at a bench trial, where the judge is the jury, it might be hard for the judge to disregard damaging evidence that is technically inadmissible, no matter how conscientious the judge might be.

• The judge will follow the rules. In some cases, the defense strategy is to hope that the jury will not follow the rules and will acquit on emotional or political grounds instead. For example, if the case has been "overcharged" (heavy charges for a minor offense), the defendant is sympathetic, the charges are unpopular (such as marijuana use or medical use), or the prosecutor is heavy handed or a bully, the jury might "Just say no." A judge is not likely to rebel in this way.

• Pressure to convict. Some experts question the neutrality of judges when deciding whether a defendant is guilty. Critics (or cynics) suspect that, because they hold public office and may have to stand for re-election, judges may be tempted to please the public's perceived desire for conviction.

What Is the Bench Trial Process?