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-00009019.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, alleges juror misconduct in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It claims that Juror No. 50 and a second deliberating juror were untruthful on their jury questionnaires by denying they had ever been victims of sexual abuse, assault, or harassment. The document sets up a section to discuss Juror No. 50's admissions of untruthfulness to the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00009015.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses the jury selection process for Ms. Maxwell's trial, specifically focusing on Juror No. 50. The defense argues that the Court's questioning of this juror, who had a history of abuse but answered 'no' to related questions, was insufficient to determine if he could be fair and impartial. The document suggests the Court failed to probe potential biases that could affect the evaluation of Ms. Maxwell's defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009014.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, details the pre-trial voir dire process concerning Juror No. 50. It outlines the defense counsel's unsuccessful motions to conduct their own voir dire and to have the Court ask jurors specific questions about being victims of crime. The document focuses on Juror No. 50's negative responses to questions about whether he had been a victim of sexual assault or would have difficulty assessing witness credibility, which are key points in a legal argument.
DOJ-OGR-00009013.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is a portion of a court filing that details the responses of 'Juror No. 50' to a pre-trial questionnaire. The juror affirmed under penalty of perjury their ability to decide the case based solely on evidence, stated they had never been a victim of a crime, and had no views on relevant laws that would impede their ability to be fair and impartial regarding the allegations against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009010.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. The basis for the argument is that Juror No. 50 provided a false answer on a jury questionnaire regarding their personal experience with sexual assault, which was a core issue in the case. This alleged dishonesty is claimed to have undermined the jury selection process (voir dire) and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009009.jpg
This document is a legal motion filed on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell requesting a new trial. The motion argues that the original trial was unfair because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, failed to disclose during jury selection (voir dire) that he was a victim of sexual abuse and then used this personal experience to persuade other jurors to convict Maxwell. The filing claims this constitutes juror misconduct and prejudice, violating Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009004.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The main argument is that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial because Juror No. 50 allegedly provided untruthful answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document also addresses arguments against Juror No. 50's right to intervene or make discovery requests, citing an ongoing investigation into the juror.
DOJ-OGR-00009003.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The filing argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct, focusing on "Juror No. 50," who allegedly was untruthful during jury selection and later gave interviews to media outlets like The Independent, Daily Mail, and Reuters. The document also notes that a second juror disclosed during deliberations that they had been a victim of sexual assault.
DOJ-OGR-00017359.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records the reading of the verdict, declaring 'Not guilty' on Count Two and 'Guilty' on Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six. The remainder of the page documents the Court polling individual jurors (Nos. 26, 48, 49, 37, 50, 70, 124, 29, 89, and 2) to confirm that this is indeed their verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009899.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Juror No. 50 should not be granted discovery, specifically a copy of his questionnaire, in advance of a hearing regarding his alleged misconduct. The filing contends that the juror's presence on the jury violated Ms. Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial, constituting a reversible error that should lead the Court to vacate the verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, arguing for a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct. The defense argues that a second juror (besides Juror No. 50) failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, citing a New York Times article and Juror No. 50's statements as evidence. The document also argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to discovery regarding communications outside of deliberations, specifically referencing social media material.
DOJ-OGR-00009897.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that the court should investigate potential misconduct by two jurors. The motion contends that Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not bar an inquiry into Juror No. 50's alleged bias and false statements, and that a second juror who alerted the New York Times about being a victim of childhood sexual abuse should also be questioned. The argument is that failing to investigate these matters violates Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009896.jpg
This legal filing argues that the government is mischaracterizing the record concerning Juror No. 50's responses during jury selection. The document contends that, unlike other jurors, Juror No. 50's specific claim of childhood sexual abuse was directly relevant to the case, and had he disclosed his belief that memory works 'like a video-tape' during the trial, the Court would have questioned his ability to fairly evaluate expert testimony on the topic.
DOJ-OGR-00009895.jpg
This document is page 26 of a legal filing from March 11, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that the Court must conduct a broad inquiry into Juror No. 50's potential bias and intent, asserting that the juror has a history of giving false answers. It contrasts Juror No. 50 with Jurors 189 and 239, who properly disclosed details of past sexual abuse in written questionnaires, though the specific details of that abuse are redacted in this document.
DOJ-OGR-00009894.jpg
This document is page 25 of a defense filing (Document 644) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. The text argues against a proposed hearing format regarding 'Juror No. 50's' alleged misconduct, citing legal precedent (*Dyer v. Calderon*) to claim that the Court cannot act as investigator, witness, and decision-maker simultaneously without violating due process. The defense questions how the Court intends to uncover Juror No. 50's motives and social media posts without independent investigation.
DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg
This legal document presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, asserting that Juror No. 50 engaged in misconduct by providing false answers under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The filing refutes the government's counterarguments, claiming the juror's dishonesty about being a victim of sexual abuse and his use of Twitter demonstrates implied bias and a deliberate pattern of falsehoods that should have resulted in his exclusion from the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009890.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a new trial is necessary due to the implied and inferable bias of Juror No. 50. The author contends that if the juror had answered voir dire questions truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The document refutes the government's legal arguments by citing precedents like United States v. Daugerdas and United States v. Torres, and suggests a hearing is needed to evaluate the juror's actual partiality.
DOJ-OGR-00009888.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a prospective juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing asserts that the juror, who was a victim of a sex crime as a child, intentionally lied about his past to avoid being disqualified from a trial concerning alleged sexual misconduct with minors. The document cites various legal precedents to support its claims about juror partiality and the implications of false answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009885.jpg
Page 16 of a legal filing (Document 644) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed March 11, 2022. The defense argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a new trial or hearing because Juror No. 50 failed to truthfully answer voir dire questions 25 and 48, preventing the defense from challenging the juror for cause. The text disputes the government's position on the burden of proof, citing precedents such as McDonough, Langford, and United States v. Stewart.
DOJ-OGR-00009883.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that she does not need to prove that Juror No. 50's false answers during jury selection were deliberately made. The document cites multiple legal precedents to support the argument that even an honest but mistaken answer from a juror can be grounds for a new trial, especially when it raises questions of juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009882.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello precedents is misplaced in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, which dealt with conduct during deliberations, this case involves a juror (Juror No. 50) who gave false answers during voir dire—conduct outside the jury room—and therefore an evidentiary hearing is warranted. The document further notes that the juror has actively sought public attention, which is how his false answers became known.
DOJ-OGR-00009878.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, argues that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was denied a fair trial because a juror, Juror No. 50, failed to disclose his history as a victim of child abuse during jury selection. The filing contends that despite the Court's assurances that it would identify dishonest jurors, Juror No. 50 did not truthfully answer direct questions on the topic, and his inclusion on the jury was prejudicial to the defense. Had the juror been truthful, the defense would have immediately challenged him for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009877.jpg
This document is page 8 of a legal filing (Document 644) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that 'Juror No. 50' committed misconduct by failing to disclose a history of child sexual abuse, which mirrors the charges against Maxwell. The defense contends that the government's comparison to other jurors who experienced minor harassment is misleading and urges the Court to investigate the claim to ensure Maxwell's right to an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009876.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing regarding Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's presence, due to alleged false answers and bias, requires a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent in 'United States v. Martinez-Salazar'. The filing asserts that the government's proposed narrow hearing would violate Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights and argues that precedent from 'United States v. Daugerdas' supports her entitlement to a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009875.jpg
This legal document is a reply filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team in support of their motion for a new trial. The central argument is that Maxwell was denied her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror No. 50, provided false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire), thereby concealing bias. The defense refutes the government's position that they must prove the juror was 'dishonest' or provided a 'deliberate falsehood,' citing case law that establishes a different standard for such situations.
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