Juror 50
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
United States Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York
|
Association denied |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Federal Bureau of Investigation
|
Association denied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
another juror
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Collins
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Independent
|
Interviewee interviewer |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
DAILY MAIL
|
Interviewee interviewer |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The district court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 189
|
Comparative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Stepbrother's friend
|
Family |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Narrator's Mother (Mom)
|
Family |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 239
|
Comparative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
None |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Juror judge |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Stepbrother
|
Family |
3
|
3 | |
|
person
Court's Jury Clerk
|
Juror official |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Juror judge |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Paramount Plus
|
Interview subject media outlet |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Juror defendant |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Juror 50's attorney
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
media
|
Interview |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Juror witness |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
media
|
Interview subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Potential Government Witnesses
|
Identification bonding |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury selection for Maxwell's trial, including a jury questionnaire where Juror 50 failed to accur... | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 gave press interviews after the verdict, stating he was a survivor of child sexual abuse. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 interview with Daily Mail. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing on potential juror misconduct involving Juror 50. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations in US v. Maxwell | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Verdict | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 filling out the juror questionnaire. | Courthouse | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sexual abuse of Juror 50. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 voir dire/questionnaire completion | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Limited Hearing | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deliberations | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial completion | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing regarding false testimony by Juror 50 | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing where Juror 50 may be a witness | The Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing on potential juror misconduct regarding Juror 50. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 33 Motion Ruling | District Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Voir dire process where Juror 50 allegedly omitted information. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 gave interviews admitting identification with witnesses. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Hearing regarding Juror 50. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50 Motion to Intervene | US District Court SDNY | View |
| N/A | N/A | Voir Dire process where Juror 50 allegedly concealed information. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror 50's experience of being sexually abused | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | The trial for which the juror is being screened, requiring attendance from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. | Courthouse | View |
| N/A | N/A | Proposed Limited Hearing Regarding Juror 50 | Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021715.jpg
This legal document details the District Court's decision, specifically Judge Nathan's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Judge Nathan's ruling was based on her assessment of Juror 50's testimony during a hearing, where she found his answers credible and concluded that his personal experiences did not compromise his impartiality, and that he would not have been struck for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021714.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023, discussing the testimony of Juror 50 regarding his failure to disclose past sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire. Juror 50 explains that he answered 'no' to questions about family members accused of abuse because he no longer considered his abuser (a stepbrother) family, and that he rushed through the questionnaire due to personal distractions and a belief he wouldn't be selected. The text notes that because of his negative answers, he was not asked follow-up questions by Judge Nathan during oral voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021713.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) detailing the procedural history of a hearing concerning 'Juror 50' in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes how Judge Nathan ordered a hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to answer jury selection questions truthfully regarding past sexual abuse. The document notes that on March 8, 2022, Juror 50 testified under immunity and admitted that his answers to specific questions (25 and 48) were inaccurate.
DOJ-OGR-00021712.jpg
This legal document describes the statements and actions of Juror 50 in a criminal case involving a defendant named Maxwell. During jury selection, Juror 50 affirmed his impartiality and denied on a questionnaire that he or his family had ever been victims of sexual abuse or crime. However, in post-verdict interviews with journalists, he revealed he was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, stating he had "flew through" the questionnaire but believed he answered honestly.
DOJ-OGR-00021711.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discussing the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically addressing how potential jurors with past experiences of sexual abuse were handled. It notes that defense counsel did not strike jurors who disclosed such history but affirmed their impartiality, citing specific examples of disclosures. The text transitions to a specific discussion regarding 'Juror 50' and their questionnaire responses to Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00021709.jpg
This page from a 2023 appellate filing (likely by the government) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four properly qualify as offenses involving sexual abuse of a child, citing testimony from a victim named 'Jane.' It also begins a section defending the District Court's decision regarding 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00021651.jpg
This document is page iii of a table of contents from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines legal arguments concerning specific criminal counts involving sexual abuse of a child, a challenge to a legal approach by someone named Maxwell, and an appeal regarding the District Court's decision to not disqualify Juror 50 despite mistakes on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021544.jpg
This document is a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell), ordering a public hearing to address potential juror misconduct. The court orders Juror 50 to appear on March 8, 2022, to testify under oath regarding answers given to Questions 25 and 48 on the jury questionnaire. The Judge also rules that Juror 50's privacy interests are outweighed by the presumption of public access given his public comments.
DOJ-OGR-00021543.jpg
This document is Page 19 of a court ruling filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, labeling it a 'fishing expedition,' and rules that Juror 50 will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire. The Court also orders that the questionnaire be docketed (unsealed), citing the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
DOJ-OGR-00021542.jpg
This legal document is a court filing from February 25, 2022, detailing the court's denial of a defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for the communications of 'Juror 50'. The court rules the request is a speculative "fishing expedition" and is procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to subpoena such content directly from providers like Facebook or Instagram.
DOJ-OGR-00021541.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 25, 2022, details a court's order regarding an inquiry into the truthfulness of answers provided by Juror 50. The court sets a deadline of March 1, 2022, for the parties to submit proposed questions for a hearing. The court denies the Defendant's broad subpoena requests for Juror 50's communications, social media history, and other records, labeling them a "vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition."
DOJ-OGR-00021538.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on 02/25/22, addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The court rejects Maxwell's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 violates her confrontation and due process rights, clarifying that Juror 50 is a factfinder, not a witness against her. The text cites various legal precedents to support the limitation on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021537.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed by the prosecution on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues against the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct (specifically regarding 'Juror 50' and a 'second juror' lying during voir dire). The text cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606 and the Supreme Court case Warger v. Shauers to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences is inadmissible and does not constitute 'extraneous prejudicial information.'
DOJ-OGR-00021536.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion or a party's brief, dated February 25, 2022. The text analyzes Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations to challenge a verdict. The document discusses the rule's specific exceptions, such as external influence or racial bias, in the context of the Defendant's attempt to use statements from 'Juror 50' about what another juror said. The central issue is whether these statements are barred by Rule 606 or fall under one of its exceptions.
DOJ-OGR-00021534.jpg
This legal document is a court order denying a defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to examine Juror 50 and other jurors. The defendant's motion was based on Juror 50's social media activity and post-trial statements, as well as a New York Times article alleging another juror had also been a victim of sexual abuse. The Court found the evidence insufficient, deemed the request a "fishing expedition," and took steps to protect juror privacy from media contact and legal inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00021533.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that while a hearing is warranted regarding Juror 50's potential failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse, the Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media usage. The Judge notes that Juror 50's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps during jury selection do not implicate the 'McDonough' standard for juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021532.jpg
This legal document discusses a discrepancy between a juror's (Juror 50) responses on a questionnaire and subsequent public statements. Juror 50 denied being a victim of a crime on the questionnaire but later told media outlets, including The Independent and The Daily Mail, on January 5, 2022, that he had been sexually abused as a minor. Based on these contradictory statements, the Court has decided to hold an evidentiary hearing to investigate the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00021529.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's motion for an immediate new trial based on the current record but determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding 'Juror 50.' The document discusses the legal standards (McDonough standard, Rule 606) for post-verdict inquiries into juror misconduct, specifically addressing allegations that Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021528.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court order (filed Feb 25, 2022) addressing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. The text outlines the legal standards under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the 'McDonough' test regarding juror nondisclosure during voir dire. Specifically, the court is analyzing whether 'Juror 50' failed to answer honestly about past sexual abuse, though the court notes in a footnote that it is not yet resolving whether a new trial is merited at this specific juncture.
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing post-trial motions regarding 'Juror 50'. It discusses the juror's media interviews where he admitted to being a sexual abuse victim despite checking 'no' on his questionnaire, prompting the Defendant to file for a new trial on January 19, 2022. The document also details a phone call on January 5, 2022, where Juror 50 contacted the Jury Department seeking guidance and access to his questionnaire, which was denied.
DOJ-OGR-00021526.jpg
This legal document is a court order filed on February 25, 2022, addressing a motion from the Defendant regarding potential juror misconduct. The Court orders a limited evidentiary hearing to question Juror 50 under oath about statements made to the media after the trial, which cast doubt on the truthfulness of their answers on the jury selection questionnaire. The Court denies the Defendant's request for a broader hearing and discovery, finding the standard is only met concerning Juror 50's questionnaire responses and not their social media use or the conduct of other jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00021525.jpg
This is an Opinion & Order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Judge Alison J. Nathan denies the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the current record, which alleged that a juror (Juror 50) lied during jury selection. However, the Court agrees to a limited evidentiary hearing to determine if Juror 50 provided a materially false answer on the questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021135.jpg
This document is page 73 of a legal appellate brief filed on February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 22-1426). The text argues that the trial court erred regarding 'Juror 50,' claiming the juror had a bias regarding sexual abuse memories that should have disqualified them. It also argues 'Point IV,' stating the court constructively amended the indictment by allowing the jury to convict Maxwell on Count Four based on activity in New Mexico (testified to by 'Jane') that was not a violation of New York law.
DOJ-OGR-00021133.jpg
This page from a legal filing (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erred regarding 'Juror 50,' claiming the juror was biased and concealed information during voir dire to act as an 'unsworn expert' on traumatic memory. It cites Rule 606(b) exceptions and references a footnote contrasting expert testimony by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (stating memory is constructed) with Juror 50's statements to The Independent (Jan 4, 2022) that abuse memories are 'replayed like a video.'
DOJ-OGR-00021132.jpg
This legal document argues that the court incorrectly applied Federal Rule of Evidence 606 to block an inquiry into statements made by Juror 50 to journalists. The author contends that because the juror voluntarily broadcast his experiences and role in the deliberations to convict Maxwell, the rule's purpose of protecting jurors from harassment is not applicable in this specific instance. The document cites 'Tanner v. United States' as precedent for the rationale behind the rule.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | Unknown Entities | Juror 50 | $0.00 | Hypothetical 'receipt of financial payment for ... | View |
| N/A | Received | Media outlets (im... | Juror 50 | $0.00 | Hypothetical compensation for post-trial interv... | View |
His personal experience of abuse
Juror 50 posted on numerous social media accounts about his abuse.
Juror's background and ability to be impartial
Juror 50 answered 'no' to Question 48 regarding being a victim of sexual abuse, but answered Question 47 stating he could assess the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault or abuse like any other witness. These answers are central to the legal argument in the document.
Jury deliberations and personal experiences related to th...
Juror 50 gave post-trial interviews where he discussed his own experience with abuse to explain his perspective on the evidence and jury deliberations.
Unknown
Request 1(a) calls for communications with victims and witnesses.
Unknown
The document discusses potential compensation Juror 50 received for post-trial media interviews.
Juror's memory and belief in victims' credibility
Juror 50 revealed to the media that he believed his memory "was like a video" and that he would advocate for the credibility of the alleged victims in the case.
General communications
The defendant requests to compel production of a juror's emails and other written communications.
Content from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and ...
The defendant requests content from Juror 50's social media accounts.
Comment on a victim's public Twitter post
Juror 50 made a public comment on a victim's public Twitter post after the trial.
Unknown
Request 1(a) calls for communications with victims and witnesses.
Unknown
The document discusses potential compensation Juror 50 received for post-trial media interviews.
General communications
The defendant requests to compel production of a juror's emails and other written communications.
Content from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and ...
The defendant requests content from Juror 50's social media accounts.
Comment on a victim's public Twitter post
Juror 50 made a public comment on a victim's public Twitter post after the trial.
Jury Selection
Juror 50's answers to the questionnaire.
Unknown
Communications, comments, and posts held by social media companies.
Post-verdict statements
Following the verdict in Maxwell's trial, Juror 50 gave press interviews in which he stated that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse.
Post-trial reflections and personal disclosure of sexual ...
Juror 50 gave post-trial interviews where he disclosed he was a victim of sexual abuse, believing that not using his full name would prevent attracting substantial attention from people he knew.
Juror qualification and background
Maxwell contends that had Juror 50 answered the questionnaire accurately, it would have provided a basis for a for-cause challenge.
Unsworn statements
Juror 50 made unsworn statements to media outlets regarding the trial.
Sharing of an interview with Juror 50
On Twitter, Annie Farmer shared an article that contained an interview with Juror 50.
Jury selection questions
Juror 50 answered a written jury questionnaire, responding "no" to questions about whether he or a family member had ever been a victim of a crime, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault.
Another juror's experiences
Statements about another juror who discussed sexual abuse during deliberations.
Jury Selection
Question 48 regarding personal history of sexual abuse.
Therapy
Disclosed seeing a therapist regularly for help dealing with the stress of the Maxwell case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity