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 | Media tour | Juror No. 50's post-verdict media press tour where he promoted himself and discussed his experien... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Juror No. 50 underwent voir dire, answering questions about his ability to assess credibility and... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The process of questioning prospective jurors, during which a juror in the Sampson case and Juror... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | The process of selecting the jury, including the use of a questionnaire and voir dire for Juror N... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal analysis | Argument that Juror No. 50 was impliedly biased based on two legal theories: lying during voir di... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Juror No. 50 provided false answers during a legal proceeding. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Juror No. 50 seeks to intervene in a criminal matter. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Disclosure | Juror No. 50 publicly admitted he is a victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Questionnaire response | Juror No. 50 completed a juror questionnaire under penalty of perjury, answering questions about ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Motion by Ms. Maxwell to conduct an inquiry into juror bias and misconduct. | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A legal argument for a new trial for Ms. Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing to question Juror No. 50 | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire (jury selection) during which Juror No. 50 allegedly did not truthfully answer material... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An investigation into Juror No. 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal filing | Juror No. 50 filed a Motion and accompanying Memorandum. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A legal argument is being made for the questioning of Juror No. 50 to determine actual bias. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | An evidentiary hearing is being discussed, with the government requesting a narrow scope and the ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The voir dire (jury selection) process during which Juror No. 50 allegedly gave false answers to ... | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Jury Selection process, including the jury questionnaire and voir dire. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Media interview | Juror No. 50 gave statements to the media, including interviews with The Independent, Daily Mail,... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The voir dire (jury selection) process during which Juror No. 50 allegedly gave false answers und... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A potential future evidentiary hearing where Juror No. 50 would be compelled to give truthful ans... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Argument that Juror No. 50 provided intentionally false answers to Questions 25 and 48 during voi... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | Juror No. 50 shared his personal experience of abuse with fellow jurors to help them understand t... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire (jury selection) for Ms. Maxwell's trial, during which Juror No. 50 was asked Questions... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021050.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii) from a legal appeal filed on February 28, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding the Statute of Limitations (Point II) and allegations that Juror No. 50 made false statements during voir dire, denying Ms. Maxwell a fair trial (Point III). The document specifically references the Mann Act, Section 3283, and the McDonough Test regarding juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021127.jpg
This page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) argues that Ms. Maxwell was deprived of an impartial jury due to Juror No. 50 providing false answers during voir dire. It details that the juror concealed his history as a victim of child sexual abuse by his step-brother, justifying his false answers on questions 25, 48, and 49 by citing his 'healing process,' distraction, and personal definition of family.
DOJ-OGR-00009220.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing that Juror No. 50 should not be given access to a sealed questionnaire prior to a potential hearing, as it might allow him to fabricate excuses. The defense concludes that the prosecution is applying a double standard regarding juror misconduct and asserts that Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the juror's presence, requesting the court vacate the conviction (implied by cut-off text).
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
This document is page 29 of a defense filing (Document 616) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues for a hearing and discovery regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically alleging that a second juror (in addition to Juror No. 50) failed to disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire. The defense cites a New York Times article and statements by Juror No. 50 as evidence, while rebutting the government's objections to post-trial discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 616) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It argues that Rule of Evidence 606(b) should not prevent an inquiry into juror misconduct, citing constitutional rights and the precedent of *Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado*. The text specifically alleges that 'Juror No. 50' showed bias and lied during *voir dire*, and reveals that a 'second juror' contacted the *New York Times* admitting they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse but failed to disclose this on the jury questionnaire (Question 48).
DOJ-OGR-00009216.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The filing argues that the questioning of 'Juror No. 50' should be broad and encompass any topic related to actual bias, citing legal precedents like Greer and United States v. James. It asserts that due to the juror's alleged pattern of giving false answers, Ms. Maxwell is not required to accept the juror's denial of acting deliberately and should be allowed to investigate the totality of the circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
This legal document argues against accepting a juror's claim of having 'missed' or 'forgotten' a question, labeling it self-serving nonsense. It draws a parallel to bankruptcy law, where untruthful statements are treated severely, citing case law to support the idea that reckless indifference to the truth is equivalent to fraud. The author finds it ironic that the government is excusing 'Juror No. 50's' false answers while being unwilling to afford the same leniency to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00009209.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Doc 616) from February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that Juror No. 50 deliberately lied on jury selection questionnaires (specifically Questions 25 and 48) regarding his history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse to avoid disqualification. The document cites various legal precedents (Greer, McDonough) to discuss the legal standards for juror bias and the necessity of a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009206.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 regarding juror misconduct. It contends that the government's view—that Maxwell must carry a heavier burden of proof because Juror No. 50 was untruthful during jury selection—is unfair and incorrect. The argument cites legal precedents, including McDonough and United States v. Stewart, to establish the proper standard for challenging a juror based on false voir dire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009204.jpg
This legal document is a page from a motion filed on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, arguing that she is entitled to a new trial due to false answers given by Juror No. 50 during jury selection. The central argument is that Maxwell does not need to prove the juror's falsehoods were deliberate, citing several legal precedents to support the claim that even honest mistakes can warrant a new trial to ensure the constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The motion criticizes the government's position as a weak attempt to achieve "finality" at the expense of justice.
DOJ-OGR-00009203.jpg
This legal document argues that the government's reliance on the Tanner and Ianniello legal precedents is incorrect in the case of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that unlike those cases, the alleged misconduct by Juror No. 50 occurred outside the jury room, specifically through false answers during voir dire and subsequent self-publicity. The document asserts that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and that the juror's own actions in seeking the limelight are the reason the misconduct came to light.
DOJ-OGR-00009200.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Juror No. 50 failed to disclose childhood sexual abuse during jury selection. The defense contends that had this information been known, Ms. Maxwell would have successfully challenged the juror for cause due to inherent bias. The text notes that the juror later spoke to the media about his trauma but is now attempting to walk back those comments after being warned by the government of potential legal consequences.
DOJ-OGR-00009199.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that a juror (Juror No. 50) in Ms. Maxwell's trial failed to disclose his own history as a victim of child abuse during jury selection. The filing asserts that this lack of candor was prejudicial to the defendant, as the defense would have immediately challenged the juror for cause had the truth been known. The document highlights that the Court had denied the defense's requests for more thorough questioning but had assured them it would identify dishonest jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009197.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing against the government's proposal for a limited evidentiary hearing concerning Juror No. 50. The defense contends that the juror's alleged false answers necessitate a reversal, citing Supreme Court precedent, and that Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to a full adversarial hearing, not the narrow one proposed by the government. The filing draws parallels to the United States v. Daugerdas case to support its claim for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009196.jpg
This document is a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team arguing for a new trial. The central claim is that her Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial was violated because Juror No. 50, and possibly another juror, provided false answers during jury selection, thus depriving her of an impartial jury of 12. The defense refutes the government's argument that they must prove the juror was "deliberately" dishonest, citing case law that they argue sets a different standard.
DOJ-OGR-00009192.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal motion filed on February 24, 2022, on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The motion argues for a new trial, primarily on the grounds that Juror No. 50 provided deliberately false answers during the jury selection process (voir dire). The document outlines the legal arguments, challenges the government's position, and discusses the procedures for a potential hearing on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00009109.jpg
This document is the Introduction page of a legal filing (Document 614) submitted on February 24, 2022, by the NACDL in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The text argues that a fair trial depends on unbiased juries and specifically addresses the controversy surrounding 'Juror No. 50,' stating that he gave untrue answers regarding his own history of sexual abuse victimization during voir dire. The filing emphasizes the difficulty of eliminating bias in sexual abuse cases and the necessity of truthful answers for the judicial process.
DOJ-OGR-00009104.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the voir dire examination of Juror No. 50, where the court questions the prospective juror about their age (35), residence (Manhattan), education (bachelor's in finance), and employment history as an executive assistant in finance.
DOJ-OGR-00009100.jpg
This document is page 128 (filed on 02/24/22) of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records Judge Nathan dismissing Juror No. 49 and beginning the questioning of Juror No. 50. The judge instructs Juror No. 50 on the presumption of innocence for Ms. Maxwell and strictly prohibits consuming media related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009065.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated January 19, 2022, arguing that Ms. Maxwell's guilty verdict should be vacated. The text alleges that Juror No. 50 and at least one other juror were dishonest during the *voir dire* process, violating the defendant's Constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury. The defense requests a new trial or, alternatively, an evidentiary hearing to examine all twelve jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00009064.jpg
This legal document argues that submissions from Juror No. 50 should remain sealed. The author contends that the submissions have questionable merit, the juror lacks reliability, and releasing the documents could compromise an ongoing investigation into juror misconduct by influencing potential witnesses. The document concludes by citing legal precedents that define the purpose of voir dire as a tool to ensure an impartial jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009063.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 24, 2022, arguing against the public release of pleadings from 'Juror No. 50'. The argument cites legal precedents, primarily Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, to outline the three-step process for determining public access to judicial documents. The author contends that releasing the documents would be prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial and that there is no compelling reason for their release.
DOJ-OGR-00009062.jpg
This legal document is a filing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing that the court should strike all filings made by 'Juror No. 50.' The argument posits that the juror, as a non-party, lacks standing and that the filings are an improper attempt at discovery, not 'judicial documents' entitled to public access. Alternatively, it requests that the juror's filings remain sealed pending the outcome of Ms. Maxwell's motion for a new trial, which is based on the same juror's alleged dishonesty during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009061.jpg
This is page 60 of a legal filing (Document 613) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against providing 'Juror No. 50' with advance access to a questionnaire, suggesting it would allow him to manipulate his testimony regarding potential misconduct. The document mentions potential charges against the juror such as perjury or criminal contempt and cites case law regarding 'standing' and the striking of filings.
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