DOJ-OGR-00009130.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 49

service.⁴ According to this article, Juror 50 “went into the trial firmly believing that Maxwell was ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and viewing the victims with a skeptical eye.” (Id. at 2). During this same interview, Juror 50 indicated that he “could not remember” the part of the questionnaire asking whether he had experienced sexual abuse, but he “was certain that he had answered all questions honestly.” (Id. at 8). Juror 50 also told this interviewer that his own experience of sexual abuse “did not affect his ability to view Maxwell as innocent until proven guilty.” (Id.).

Third, on or about January 5, 2022, Reuters published an article reporting an interview with Juror 50 regarding his jury service. (See Gov’t Ex. C). When asked about the juror questionnaire, Juror 50 reportedly said “he ‘flew through’ the initial questionnaire and also did not recall being asked on the form about personal experiences with sexual abuse, but that he would have answered honestly.” (Id. at 3).⁵

⁴ This video is different from the video attached as Defense Exhibit 3 to the defense’s motion. The lengthier video is viewable at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html.

⁵ Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), the foregoing recitation of Juror 50’s public statements excludes any reference to statements that Juror 50 made about what “occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment.” The defendant’s brief, in an apparent attempt to show bias or prejudice, contains a recitation of certain of Juror 50’s statements about what happened during deliberations. (See Def. Mem. at 12-15). Those statements are not admissible in these proceedings. See Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40, 44 (2014). But the Court should not be misled by the defendant’s selective presentation of Juror 50’s statements, because a review of the full interviews reveals the impartiality with which he approached this case and the care that the jury took when deliberating. For example, Juror 50 told The Independent that the jury “didn’t see enough direct evidence to convict on count two” because “there just wasn’t any direct evidence for any specific trip that Maxwell took any action to entice Jane to get on those flights.” (Gov’t Ex. A at 5). During that same interview, Juror 50 explained that he voted to convict the defendant on the remaining counts because “he believed all of the victims who testified” because “the accusers corroborated each other and were backed up by other evidence.” (Id. at 2). He further explained that he rejected Professor Loftus’s testimony because “she had never conducted a study on whether [the tactics she studied] would work with memories of sexual abuse.” (Id. at 4).

9

DOJ-OGR-00009130