Juror No. 50
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Juror defendant |
12
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
35 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
second juror
|
Co jurors |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Communication |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Juror court |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defendant juror |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional potential bias |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional juror defendant |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Lucia Osborne-Crowley
|
Professional interviewer interviewee |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Juror defendant |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Social media interaction |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Juror witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus
|
Adversarial juror vs expert witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Judicial oversight |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Juror witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Luc Cohen
|
Interview subject interviewer |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Osborne-Crawley
|
Interviewee interviewer implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Lucia Osborne-Crowley
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 questioning during trial. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50's Twitter account was active. | Online | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Farmer. | View | |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection Questionnaire Process | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 answering Questions 25 and 48 during jury selection. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror No. 50 media press tour | Various media outlets | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Voir Dire Questioning | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jurors answering Question 48 regarding abuse history | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation into juror misconduct | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation of Juror No. 50 | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Investigation into the conduct of Juror No. 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection (voir dire) | The process of screening prospective jurors for Ms. Maxwell's trial, during which Juror No. 50 al... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | During voir dire, defense counsel attempted to locate the Twitter account of Juror No. 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Ms. Maxwell's trial, which is the subject of a motion for a new trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Hearing | A proposed evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50, which is being debated by the government a... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Juror misconduct | Juror No. 50 and a second deliberating juror were untruthful on their jury selection questionnair... | The Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A motion for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell, based on issues with a juror's answers during voir dire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection (voir dire) | Juror No. 50 provided answers to questions during the voir dire process, which are now being chal... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which is the subject of the motion for a new trial. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | Juror No. 50 provided false answers to questions, which deprived the Court of a basis for inquiry... | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | Jurors completed questionnaires as part of the selection process. The document alleges that at le... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | Juror No. 50 told his fellow jurors about the abuse he suffered, causing the room to go 'went sil... | Jury room | View |
| N/A | Interview | Juror No. 50 was interviewed by Reuters journalist Luc Cohen. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Interview | Juror No. 50 was interviewed by the Daily Mail. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009060.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 613) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against 'Juror No. 50's' request to intervene and obtain discovery, citing that the juror has no legal standing and is currently under criminal investigation. The prosecution argues that releasing information would allow the juror to tailor their testimony and prejudice the ongoing investigation into their conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009059.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues that 'Juror No. 50' lacks legal standing and has no right to intervene in a criminal case. The filing references several legal precedents, including Cunningham v. Shoop and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, to discuss juror bias and testimony, ultimately concluding that established precedent, such as in United States v. Stoerr, prevents a non-party from having a judicially recognized interest in a defendant's prosecution. The document also notes that Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer a questionnaire, having later publicly admitted to being a victim of sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00009058.jpg
This document is page 50 (PDF page 57) of a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests a hearing to question Juror No. 50 regarding potential bias, alleging that at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire which violated Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights. The filing argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as it pertains to juror qualifications rather than the content of deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009057.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details requests for evidence related to potential misconduct by "Juror No. 50." It seeks communications, social media activity, and records of payments to the juror. The document also describes how this juror and another juror, who both allegedly failed to disclose they were victims of childhood sexual abuse, discussed these experiences during deliberations, potentially influencing the verdict rendered by all 12 jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009056.jpg
This is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The document argues that Juror No. 50 falsely answered questions during jury selection (voir dire) and requests subpoenas for the juror's emails with alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009053.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, argues that 'Juror No. 50' gave false answers during jury selection, which prevented the Court from properly assessing his impartiality and potential biases. The filing asserts that truthful answers would have led to the juror's removal. It also notes that the juror has continued to engage in 'media exploits,' including appearing in a documentary on January 18, 2022, despite being represented by counsel in this matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009052.jpg
This document is page 51 (internal page 44) of a legal filing (Document 613) dated February 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' was dishonest during jury selection (voir dire) by failing to disclose that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and crime (referencing Questions 48 and 25). The text asserts that this nondisclosure prevented the defense from probing his ability to be impartial regarding Dr. Loftus's testimony and Maxwell's defense strategy concerning false memories.
DOJ-OGR-00009051.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that Juror No. 50 provided false answers during jury selection and has subsequently embraced media attention. It contends that the juror's dishonesty prevented proper examination by the court and parties. The document also accuses the government of attempting to silence the juror by writing a letter for media publication, thereby circumventing court orders.
DOJ-OGR-00009050.jpg
This legal document argues that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, engaged in a post-trial publicity tour, including a documentary interview, potentially for financial gain. The government's public filing of a letter (Docket No. 568) to stop the juror's media appearances is presented as a strategic move to prevent further scrutiny of the juror's conduct, which could have provided grounds for a new trial for the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009049.jpg
This document is page 48 of a legal filing (Document 613) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. The text argues that 'Juror No. 50' intentionally provided false answers on a jury selection questionnaire. It claims this intent is evidenced by the juror's post-verdict media appearances where he promoted himself and his status as a victim.
DOJ-OGR-00009048.jpg
This legal document argues that 'Juror No. 50' is not credible. It cites a nonsensical explanation the juror gave to a Daily Mail reporter for a false answer on a questionnaire. The document further refutes the juror's claim that he 'flew through' the questionnaire by highlighting the Court's explicit instructions for careful and truthful completion.
DOJ-OGR-00009047.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on February 24, 2022, presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell that Juror No. 50 intentionally provided false answers to questions during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell can meet the burden of proof to show the juror's dishonesty and that the court should infer bias, citing legal precedents to support its claims. The filing suggests that video evidence of the juror being confronted with the false answers supports the claim of intentional deception.
DOJ-OGR-00009043.jpg
This document is page 42 of a legal filing (Document 613) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It argues that 'Juror No. 50' demonstrated implied bias through post-trial conduct, specifically communicating with victim Annie Farmer (spelled 'Famer' in text) and making public statements that the verdict was 'for all the victims.' The text also alleges the juror lied during voir dire to secure a spot on the jury, citing case law (Daugerdas) regarding juror dishonesty.
DOJ-OGR-00009042.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion arguing for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. It cites the 2018 New Hampshire case, State v. Ashfar, as precedent, where a new trial was granted because a juror failed to disclose during voir dire that he was a victim of sexual assault. The document draws a parallel between the juror in Ashfar and 'Juror No. 50' in Maxwell's case, suggesting a similar false denial of personal experience warrants a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009041.jpg
This legal document discusses the critical issue of juror impartiality and memory reliability in court proceedings. It references the Sampson v. United States case, where a new penalty-phase hearing was ordered due to a juror's undisclosed personal experiences as a crime victim, drawing parallels to concerns about Juror No. 50's ability to fairly evaluate evidence in the current case. The document also incorporates expert testimony from Dr. Loftus regarding the confidence and accuracy of memories, emphasizing the potential for bias when jurors' personal experiences align with case details.
DOJ-OGR-00009040.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of Ms. Maxwell's defense, arguing against the reliability of her accusers' memories. It highlights similarities between the claims of accusers (Jane, Carolyn, Kate, Annie Farmer) and those of Juror No. 50, who also claims to be a victim of abuse. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's assertion that his memory can be 'replayed like a video,' directly contradicting the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus, who stated that memory is a constructive process, thereby questioning the validity of such memory claims and suggesting potential juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009039.jpg
This legal document, page 38 of a court filing from February 24, 2022, argues that a specific juror, Juror No. 50, should be considered impliedly biased. The argument is supported by citing legal precedent from various cases (Eubanks, Daugerdas, Dyer, Sampson) which establish two main theories for implied bias: when a juror lies during the selection process (voir dire) and when a juror's personal life experiences are too similar to the issues being litigated in the case, potentially compromising their impartiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009036.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial. The basis for the argument is that a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire) by denying he had ever been a victim of a crime or sexual abuse. The document asserts that the juror later admitted to media outlets that he was a victim of childhood sexual abuse, and that this dishonesty was material to his ability to serve as an impartial juror, thus satisfying the legal test for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009029.jpg
This legal filing from February 2022 argues that Ghislaine Maxwell was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct. It highlights that Juror No. 50 and a second anonymous juror disclosed their own histories of sexual assault during deliberations, which allegedly influenced the jury's discussions. The document cites press interviews and a New York Times article as evidence of these disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00009027.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, showing a screenshot of a deleted tweet from January 4, 2022. In the tweet, a user 'S' (implied to be Juror No. 50) tells '@anniefarmer' that her story was critical to the jury's verdict. The document also states that Juror No. 50 posted about his jury service on Instagram, raising potential issues of juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009024.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It shows screenshots of tweets from Lucia Osborne-Crowley, who announced an exclusive interview with a juror ('Scotty') from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, and a responsive tweet from Annie Farmer expressing gratitude. The document states that Juror No. 50 subsequently 'liked' Farmer's tweet and then tweeted directly at her, indicating a direct social media interaction between a juror and a witness/survivor.
DOJ-OGR-00009022.jpg
This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) details post-trial media interviews given by Juror No. 50 to Reuters and the Daily Mail. The text highlights that Juror No. 50 disclosed his own history of sexual abuse to the jury to help sway members who doubted the credibility of accusers Jane and Carolyn. Additionally, it notes that in a Daily Mail video (Exhibit 3), the juror explicitly denied being asked about his sexual abuse history in the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009021.jpg
This page from a legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, details statements from 'Juror No. 50' in the case involving Ms. Maxwell. The juror explains how his own experience with abuse influenced his perspective on the victims' credibility and how he shared this with the jury. It also describes a post-trial interview the juror gave to the Daily Mail, published on January 5, in which he called Ms. Maxwell a 'predator' and discussed the verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009020.jpg
This document details statements made by Juror No. 50, identified as Scotty David, to The Independent journalist Lucia Osborne-Crowley, published on January 4, 2022. Juror No. 50, a victim of sexual assault, revealed how his personal experience and vivid traumatic memories influenced the jury's belief in Ms. Maxwell's accusers and led him to discredit the testimony of Ms. Maxwell's expert witness, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus.
Jury Service
Posted about his jury service after the verdict was returned on Instagram
Impartiality
Asked if he had any doubt about ability to be fair; Juror 50 said 'no'.
Trial/Verdict
Juror publicized interviews with the press.
Jury Selection
False denials regarding victim status and social media usage.
Juror Screening
Written questionnaire and in-person questioning.
Voir Dire / Background check
Questioning regarding age, residence, education, and employment history.
Role on jury and experience as a victim
Juror No. 50 promoting himself and his experience.
Unknown
Request for subpoenas covering emails or written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victim or witness.
Unknown
Request for subpoenas covering emails or written communications between Juror No. 50 and any other juror in the case.
Unknown
Juror No. 50 used Twitter to communicate directly to Annie Farmer.
Press Tour
Revealed he was not alone in disclosing victim status to jurors.
Unknown
Direct communication via Twitter.
Disclosure of second juror's history
Statement that a second juror disclosed they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Press tour
Revealed disclosure of abuse history during deliberations.
Jury Questionnaire Question 48
Failure to disclose being a victim of sexual abuse.
Jury Questionnaire Question 25
Failure to disclose being a victim of a crime.
Juror Disclosures
Statement that a second juror disclosed they were also a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
Voir Dire Answers
Admitting to having provided false answers during voir dire.
Motion for intervention and discovery
Requests regarding judicial document status, currently under seal.
Jury Questionnaire Response
Interviewer challenges Juror No. 50 regarding question 48 about being a victim of abuse.
Unknown
The document notes that Juror No. 50 communicated with Annie Famer (Farmer).
Verdict
Proclaimed that the verdict against Ms. Maxwell was a verdict 'for all the victims.'
Juror's beliefs on memory and abuse
Disclosed beliefs such as 'the abusive event is like a video and victims remember the event accurately'.
Potential legal trouble
Alerted the juror that he 'may be in trouble' regarding his disclosures/conduct.
Twitter handle @ScottyDavidNYC
Defense counsel was unable to locate the Twitter account of Juror No. 50, with the handle @ScottyDavidNYC, during voir dire.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity