DOJ-OGR-00009741.jpg
885 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
9
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
4
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
885 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a page from a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The argument centers on the post-trial conduct of 'Juror No. 50,' who allegedly engaged in a paid publicity tour, gave interviews for a documentary, and communicated with journalist Annie Farmer, demonstrating bias. The document criticizes the government for publicly filing a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's tour, arguing this was an improper procedure that alerted the juror to scrutiny, whereas Ms. Maxwell's counsel would have objected and preferred the matter be handled under seal.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
A juror whose post-trial conduct, including a publicity tour and interviews, is being used as a basis to argue for a ...
|
| Ghislaine |
Mentioned in the title of a documentary, “Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile.” Implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
|
| Prince Andrew |
Mentioned in the title of a documentary, “Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile.”
|
|
| Annie Farmer |
A person with whom Juror No. 50 communicated directly.
|
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
The defendant in the case. The document argues that Juror No. 50 persuaded other jurors to convict her. It also state...
|
Organizations (9)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| ITV | company |
A British television channel that aired a documentary featuring an interview with Juror No. 50.
|
| company |
A social media platform where Juror No. 50 engaged with a journalist.
|
|
| British press | media |
Mentioned in a footnote as commonly paying for crime victims' stories.
|
| mirror.co.uk | media |
Cited as an example of British press paying for stories.
|
| trianglenews.co.uk | media |
Cited as an example of British press paying for stories.
|
| dailymail.co.uk | media |
Cited as an example of British press paying for stories.
|
| The government | government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, which publicly filed a letter asking the Court to inquire into Juror No. 50's cond...
|
| this Court | government agency |
The judicial body overseeing the case.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document (DOJ-OGR-00009741), likely standing for Department of Justice.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Juror No. 50 sat for an interview as part of an hour-long documentary called “Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and the Paedophile.”
The government publicly filed Docket No. 568, a letter concerning Juror No. 50's conduct.
this Court
early January 2022
Juror No. 50 engaged in a publicity tour, giving multiple interviews to news outlets.
Relationships (4)
The document states that Juror No. 50 'has communicated directly with Annie Farmer.'
Juror No. 50 was a juror in Ms. Maxwell's trial and is described as having a 'biased view of the evidence' and persuading other jurors 'to vote to convict Ms. Maxwell.'
The government took action by filing a public letter to stop Juror No. 50's publicity tour and to have his conduct scrutinized by the Court.
The document is part of a legal case where the government is the prosecuting party and Ms. Maxwell is the defendant. This page criticizes the government's actions on behalf of Ms. Maxwell.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,479 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 642 Filed 03/11/22 Page 49 of 66
several different news outlets (some of which he was likely paid for)¹⁴, and he sat for an
interview as part of an hour-long “documentary” called “Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and
the Paedophile,” which aired on the British channel ITV. He has engaged on Twitter with
the journalist who wrote about him, and he has communicated directly with Annie
Farmer. See Ashfar, 196 A.3d at 95-96 (relying on juror’s post-trial conduct as a basis for
concluding juror was biased and new trial was required because juror falsely answered
material question during voir dire). Juror No. 50’s publicity tour appears to have stopped
(at least temporarily) only because the government publicly filed a letter asking this
Court to inquire into Juror No. 50’s truthfulness and suggesting that he needed a lawyer.
The clear message from the government to Juror No. 50 was to stop talking.¹⁵
interview as part of an hour-long “documentary” called “Ghislaine, Prince Andrew and
the Paedophile,” which aired on the British channel ITV. He has engaged on Twitter with
the journalist who wrote about him, and he has communicated directly with Annie
Farmer. See Ashfar, 196 A.3d at 95-96 (relying on juror’s post-trial conduct as a basis for
concluding juror was biased and new trial was required because juror falsely answered
material question during voir dire). Juror No. 50’s publicity tour appears to have stopped
(at least temporarily) only because the government publicly filed a letter asking this
Court to inquire into Juror No. 50’s truthfulness and suggesting that he needed a lawyer.
The clear message from the government to Juror No. 50 was to stop talking.¹⁵
¹⁴ It is common for the British press to pay for crime victims’ stories. See, e.g.,
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sell-my-story/; https://trianglenews.co.uk/sell-my-story-to-the-daily-mail/; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus/index.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sell-my-story/; https://trianglenews.co.uk/sell-my-story-to-the-daily-mail/; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus/index.html
¹⁵ Juror No. 50 was clearly enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame in early January
2022, giving multiple interviews in which he congratulated himself as the person who
persuaded the other jurors to adopt his biased view of the evidence and to vote to convict
Ms. Maxwell.
2022, giving multiple interviews in which he congratulated himself as the person who
persuaded the other jurors to adopt his biased view of the evidence and to vote to convict
Ms. Maxwell.
The government recognized that Juror No. 50 had dug a very deep hole—a hole
that looked to be getting deeper. Without conferring as to either the submission of the
letter or any redactions, the government publicly filed Docket No. 568. This letter
communicated to Juror No. 50, and the media, that Juror No. 50 had done something
wrong, that his conduct would be subject to scrutiny, and that the conduct was serious
enough to warrant appointment of a lawyer, free of charge if necessary.
that looked to be getting deeper. Without conferring as to either the submission of the
letter or any redactions, the government publicly filed Docket No. 568. This letter
communicated to Juror No. 50, and the media, that Juror No. 50 had done something
wrong, that his conduct would be subject to scrutiny, and that the conduct was serious
enough to warrant appointment of a lawyer, free of charge if necessary.
Had Ms. Maxwell been asked, she would have objected to the public filing of this
letter, which caused Juror No. 50 to delete his social media accounts and alerted Juror
No. 50 that he needed to stop giving media presentations and to work on his story.
letter, which caused Juror No. 50 to delete his social media accounts and alerted Juror
No. 50 that he needed to stop giving media presentations and to work on his story.
The government knows how to file a letter under seal, and this Court’s protocol
throughout this case has been for the parties to file letters or pleadings under restriction
with a conferral and briefing as to what portion of the document should be redacted. The
throughout this case has been for the parties to file letters or pleadings under restriction
with a conferral and briefing as to what portion of the document should be redacted. The
42
DOJ-OGR-00009741
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document