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

[Dotta]

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.

Thanks.
It was very interesting to read.
In my country we only have bench trials with 1 or sometimes 2 Judges (in complex cases).
There are also 2 Jurors, but they only give their opinions to the Judge/s

 

[Cool Cats]

Thanks.
It was very interesting to read.
In my country we only have bench trials with 1 or sometimes 2 Judges (in complex cases).
There are also 2 Jurors, but they only give their opinions to the Judge/s

Very different. I like the jury system with the option of bench trial. Seems more fair.

Not all jurys have 12 people on them, can be less jurors.

Trial Jury
A trial jury, also known as a petit jury, decides whether the defendant committed the crime as charged in a criminal case, or whether the defendant injured the plaintiff in a civil case.

• Consists of 6-12 people.
• Trials are generally public, but jury deliberations are private.
• Defendants have the right to appear, testify, and call witnesses on their behalf.
• Final outcome is a verdict, in favor of plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, or guilty/not guilty in a criminal case.

Grand Jury
A grand jury is presented with evidence from the prosecutor. The grand jury determines whether there is “probable cause” to believe the individual has committed a crime and should be put on trial. If the grand jury determines there is enough evidence, an indictment will be issued against the defendant.

• Consists of 16-23 people.

Federal vs. State Crimes

Examples of Federal Crimes
Federal crimes are often associated with multiple states and municipalities, which is why local authorities of a city or county cannot handle them.

• Counterfeiting Currency
• Illegal immigration/residency
• Drug Trafficking
• Carjacking
• Kidnapping
• Hacking/E-Scams
• Identity Theft
• Offenses on Federal property or against Federal authorities
• Weapons and Human Trafficking
• Child
• Tax Evasion
• Aircraft Hijacking
• Animal Cruelty
• Violation of the Espionage Act
• Valuable Art Theft (from museums)
• Credit Card Fraud
• Bank Robbery
• Violation of Patriot act

Examples of State Crimes
Criminal offenses that violate the law within a single state can be prosecuted by local agencies. Most of these crimes are straightforward, i.e. there is rarely a mastermind in the running for a court trial. Nonetheless, prosecution at state level can also be very tiresome and problematic. Perpetrators may deceive law and escape penalties is there is insufficient evidence to incriminate them. The following crimes are more of umbrella terms that be categorized into a number of different offenses.

• Theft/Robbery (Shoplifting, residential break-ins, pickpocketing)
• Homicide (Murder, Manslaughter)
• Assault and Battery (Harassment, Threats, Rape, Beating/Trashing)
• DUI/DWI crimes (Drunk Driving, Driving under the influence of Drugs)
• Domestic Violence (Physical and Mental Abuse of an intimate partner or family member)
• Vandalism (destruction of private/public property, illegal street art/graffiti)

 

[Chelly]

Juror SD is nothing more than a publicity hound who got his 15 minutes of fame. It's unlikely there will be a retrial based on his nonsensical statements, my opinion. The atmosphere surrounding GM and PA is a circus and belittles the seriousness of the crimes. The focus should remain on the victims, in my opinion.

 

[Dotta]

Juror SD is nothing more than a publicity hound who got his 15 minutes of fame. It's unlikely there will be a retrial based on his nonsensical statements, my opinion. The atmosphere surrounding GM and PA is a circus and belittles the seriousness of the crimes. The focus should remain on the victims, in my opinion.

I agree.
This circus is a slap on victims' faces.
Im not surprised that one woman decided to quit in case of retrial.

 

[Chelly]

I agree.
This circus is a slap on victims' faces.
Im not surprised that one woman decided to quit in case of retrial.

Agree, this has been a long and painful journey for the victims.

 

[RickshawFan]

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

IMO we have to be careful here. We don't know if this juror isn't dissociating NOW. Or if he's gappy NOW. Or if he's remembering correctly NOW. The effects of trauma IMO are not black and white, and can seem very contradictory. There are different degrees of dissociation, different degrees of remembering, etc. They are not an on/off switch, as in "now my memory works" versus "now my memory is not working". I think all of us have had times where we forgot something one moment and remembered the next. Memory does this: it's not generally black/white on/off.

It's also very possible this juror was not casual in filling out his form, but he has forgotten. Maybe the question made him dissociate in the moment..... Maybe the question made him so anxious, he didn't speak his truth....

I'm very glad the judge is the one settling this, instead of the media. IMO the media is putting all of this in simplistic terms that completely bypass the reality of childhood trauma.

 

[Cool Cats]

A new trial for Ghislaine Maxwell would 'go even worse' for her, victim's lawyer says, claiming more accusers came forward after her sex-trafficking conviction

Fri, January 21, 2022, 2:27 PM

The prospect of a new trial for Ghislaine Maxwell would be frustrating for victims who may be asked to testify again, and to the prosecutors who successfully convicted her on charges of sex-trafficking them to Jeffrey Epstein.

But it wouldn't be the end of the world, according to Brad Edwards, an attorney representing 58 women who have accused Epstein of misconduct.

Since jurors convicted Maxwell in late December, more women have contacted Edwards to say they'd be willing to participate in any investigations into her conduct, he told Insider.

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

 

[UK Girl]

IMO we have to be careful here. We don't know if this juror isn't dissociating NOW. Or if he's gappy NOW. Or if he's remembering correctly NOW. The effects of trauma IMO are not black and white, and can seem very contradictory. There are different degrees of dissociation, different degrees of remembering, etc. They are not an on/off switch, as in "now my memory works" versus "now my memory is not working". I think all of us have had times where we forgot something one moment and remembered the next. Memory does this: it's not generally black/white on/off.

It's also very possible this juror was not casual in filling out his form, but he has forgotten. Maybe the question made him dissociate in the moment..... Maybe the question made him so anxious, he didn't speak his truth....

I'm very glad the judge is the one settling this, instead of the media. IMO the media is putting all of this in simplistic terms that completely bypass the reality of childhood trauma.

but he hasnt said any of that. To start with he denied it said anything about sex abuse and only changing his mind after the Daily Mail called him out on that. At that point he said if he had seen it...he would have answered honestly which raises the question. Did he or not answer honestly? By his own words...he said he rushed through the questions...we can only go by his words to be honest.

 

[Dotta]

I blame the Judge for this fiasco.
Something was obviously not working properly.
I was disgusted by hurrying the Jury, and blackmailing them that they would be forced to work during holidays.
If Covid was the problem, then why not do it remotely?

 

[Cool Cats]

I blame the Judge for this fiasco.
Something was obviously not working properly.
I was disgusted by hurrying the Jury, and blackmailing them that they would be forced to work during holidays.
If Covid was the problem, then why not do it remotely?

The judge rushed it for the one reason that Covid could cause jurors to get sick and then impact the deliberations.

I agree that in that case they could go remote. Also, didn't they have any alternates left? This is what alternates are for.

Also, jury deliberations could have been postponed as a last ditch effort, had Covid caused a big problem.

 

[UK Girl]

I blame the Judge for this fiasco.
Something was obviously not working properly.
I was disgusted by hurrying the Jury, and blackmailing them that they would be forced to work during holidays.
If Covid was the problem, then why not do it remotely?

thats what I didnt get. That morning they asked some questions and wanted statements and clarified they would have to work through New Years Eve and New Years day sounding like they had some way to go and ofc they had several statements to go through and yet just a few hours later they had a verdict...it seemed weird at the time.

 

[Dotta]

A new trial for Ghislaine Maxwell would 'go even worse' for her, victim's lawyer says, claiming more accusers came forward after her sex-trafficking conviction

Fri, January 21, 2022, 2:27 PM

The prospect of a new trial for Ghislaine Maxwell would be frustrating for victims who may be asked to testify again, and to the prosecutors who successfully convicted her on charges of sex-trafficking them to Jeffrey Epstein.

But it wouldn't be the end of the world, according to Brad Edwards, an attorney representing 58 women who have accused Epstein of misconduct.

Since jurors convicted Maxwell in late December, more women have contacted Edwards to say they'd be willing to participate in any investigations into her conduct, he told Insider.

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

I wouldn't be so sure.

"You never get into the same river twice".

 

[Cool Cats]

I wouldn't be so sure.

"You never get into the same river twice".

Different river because different victims.

 

[UK Girl]

I wouldn't be so sure.

"You never get into the same river twice".

From what the juror said they had trouble coming to a unanimous decision til he very kindly told them his life story and possibly screwed the case up which indicated the Prosecution didnt do a good enough job and tbh had he not spoken up who knows how the verdict would have gone so next time if there is a retrial the Prosecution will do a more thorough job. Incidentally about the judge sorting this out...she was in the one who said in the first place she could sniff out people who shouldnt be on the trial....i guess that failed

 

[Dotta]

Different river because different victims.

Always the optimist haha
Ok - I trust you

 

[Cool Cats]

Always the optimist haha
Ok - I trust you

But the ocean runs deep, don't know what you'll find.....lol...

 

[Dotta]

But the ocean runs deep, don't know what you'll find.....lol...

Oh
Deep Ocean has lots of Secrets!

 

[Forest_Wood]

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.

I did see an interview with Cressinda Dick where she said they will be looking into it once again in light of the U.S. case going forward. I can’t recall the source at the moment. imo.

edited to add source:

 

[Dotta]

I did see an interview with Cressinda Dick where she said they will be looking into it once again in light of the U.S. case going forward. I can’t recall the source at the moment. imo.

Do you mean:
"Lessons will be learnt"?
Yawn.

 

[UK Girl]

I did see an interview with Cressinda Dick where she said they will be looking into it once again in light of the U.S. case going forward. I can’t recall the source at the moment.

that was some months ago yes Met decision to drop Prince Andrew inquiry ‘no surprise’, says ally | Prince Andrew | The Guardian