| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
17
Very Strong
|
24 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Juror defendant |
12
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
22 | |
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Juror defendant |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
11
Very Strong
|
12 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Juror judge |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
location
court
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Juror defendant |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Annie Farmer
|
Social media interaction |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Defendant juror |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Juror 50’s counsel
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Juror 50's mother
|
Family |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
TODD A. SPODEK
|
Client |
7
|
2 | |
|
location
court
|
Judicial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Counsel
|
Client |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
second juror
|
Co jurors |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror 50's stepbrother
|
Family |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
TODD A. SPODEK
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Spodek
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 |
| 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 |
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a procedural argument between counsel. Government counsel Ms. Moe pushes for a quick, by-Friday deadline for a post-trial briefing on an issue concerning Juror 50's testimony. Opposing counsel Ms. Sternheim argues for a two-week extension, citing the issue's importance and an upcoming trial she is starting on the 16th. The judge acknowledges the issue's significance but appears to favor a more expedited schedule.
This document is a transcript page (A-283) from Case 22-1426 (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell appeal), documenting a voir dire hearing. The Judge questions 'Juror 50' regarding their lack of diligence in filling out a jury questionnaire; the juror admits to being 'distracted' and rushing ('float, fly through it') to finish. Prosecutor Ms. Moe confirms the government has no further questions at that stage.
This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.
This document is a transcript page (likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial proceedings, indicated by 'M38TMAX1') regarding 'Juror 50'. The Court grants Juror 50 'use immunity' following an assertion of Fifth Amendment privileges, protecting them from prosecution based on their testimony provided they do not commit perjury. The Court also explicitly instructs the juror not to reveal information regarding jury deliberations or thought processes during the trial.
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The order commands Juror 50 to appear for a public hearing on March 8, 2022, to provide testimony. It also sets deadlines for the involved parties to submit proposed questions and to request redactions to a temporarily sealed Opinion & Order.
This document is a court docket report for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell covering March 15 to April 26, 2022. Major events include the denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial following allegations regarding Juror 50's non-disclosure of prior abuse, which the court deemed not deliberate. The docket also details administrative corrections regarding judge assignment, the scheduling of the sentencing for June 28, 2022, and the establishment of deadlines for the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR).
This document represents a page from the SDNY court docket for United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between February 25 and March 3, 2022. The entries focus heavily on post-trial motions regarding 'Juror 50', who was scheduled for a hearing on March 8, 2022. Key developments include Juror 50's attorney notifying the court that the juror intended to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the Government's subsequent notification that they were seeking approval to compel the juror's testimony via immunity orders (18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6003).
This document is a page from the SDNY court docket for the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, dated February 24, 2022. It contains a significant Order (Entry 610) by Judge Alison J. Nathan granting a post-verdict evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, citing media interviews given by the juror. The document also notes administrative motions to intervene and a letter from the prosecution team (AUSAs Comey, Moe, Pomerantz, and Rohrbach).
This document is a court docket sheet from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between February 11 and February 24, 2022. It details motions for a new trial filed by the defense, communications regarding redactions to protect juror anonymity (specifically Juror 50), and the granting of an amicus curiae brief. The document lists correspondence between the prosecution (USA), the defense team (Sternheim, Everdell), and Judge Alison J. Nathan.
This document is a table of contents page (Page ii) from a court filing appendix related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 22-1426), dated February 28, 2023. It lists legal orders, memoranda, and exhibits related to the post-trial controversy surrounding 'Juror 50,' including media articles published in January 2022 and a hearing transcript from March 2022. The document tracks the judicial process overseen by Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the motion for a new trial based on juror disclosures.
This document is a court docket sheet (Case 22-1426) containing entries from April 2022 regarding USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Key entries include the denial of Maxwell's motions for a new trial (Rule 33) and acquittal (Rule 29), confirmation that Juror 50 was found credible, and the scheduling of her sentencing for June 28, 2022. The document explicitly references Maxwell's role as a coconspirator with Jeffrey Epstein in a decade-long agreement to groom and sexually abuse underage girls.
This legal document is a court docket summary from July 2022, detailing filings and orders from February 2022 in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The entries, primarily orders from Judge Alison J. Nathan, concern procedural matters like redactions and amicus briefs. The most significant action is the Court's order for an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, a matter which could impact the validity of the trial's verdict.
This document is a court docket sheet for Case 22-1426 involving Ghislaine Maxwell, covering dates from February 4 to February 16, 2022. It details legal maneuvers surrounding Maxwell's motion for a new trial, including disputes over sealing documents, the intervention of 'Juror 50,' and an amicus brief request by the NACDL. Judge Alison J. Nathan issued orders denying the blanket sealing of new trial documents and setting deadlines for amicus briefs.
This document is a page from the docket of the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, showing entries from April 2022. It details the denial of a motion for a new trial involving Juror 50, scheduling orders for sentencing, and an Opinion & Order denying a Rule 29 motion while granting a motion regarding multiplicitous counts. The document establishes that judgment of conviction will be entered on Counts Three, Four, and Six.
This document is a court docket sheet from the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings between February 25 and March 2, 2022. It details the scheduling of a hearing for March 8, 2022, to question 'Juror 50' regarding potential misconduct or questionnaire discrepancies. Key entries reveal that Juror 50's attorney, Todd Spodek, informed the court that the juror intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, leading the Government to seek approval to compel testimony via immunity.
This document is a page from a court docket related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing proceedings and filings in late February 2022. It includes orders regarding the questioning of Juror 50, motions for a new trial, amicus briefs, and various correspondence between the defense, prosecution, and Judge Alison J. Nathan.
This document is a court docket summary from February 2022 for the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, presided over by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It details several procedural orders regarding motions for a new trial, redactions to protect juror privacy, and the filing of an amicus brief. The most significant entry is an order granting an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether Juror 50 failed to truthfully disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection, while denying a broader hearing involving other jurors.
This document is a page from a court docket (Case 22-1426) related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, covering filings from February 4, 2022, to February 16, 2022. It details various legal proceedings including orders on sealing documents, motions for a new trial, letters from both the prosecution and defense, and issues concerning the intervention of "Juror 50" and amicus briefs.
This document appears to be page 19 of an appellate filing (dated Dec 2, 2024) upholding the District Court's decisions in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It addresses the court's refusal to grant a new trial based on juror misconduct (specifically regarding Juror 50) and defends the court's response to a jury note concerning Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to New Mexico.
This legal document, page 18 of a court filing dated December 2, 2024, discusses the District Court's denial of a Rule 33 motion for a new trial. The motion was based on an allegedly erroneous answer given by 'Juror 50' during voir dire. The document explains that the court applied the standard from 'McDonough v. Greenwood', finding the juror's testimony credible and his response not deliberately incorrect, and also noting that the defendant, Maxwell, had not challenged other jurors with similar backgrounds.
This document is a legal opinion discussing the District Court's denial of Maxwell's motion for a new trial. Maxwell argued she was deprived of a fair trial because Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The document reviews the standard for abuse of discretion in denying such motions, emphasizing that new trials are granted sparingly and only under extraordinary circumstances.
This legal document details the post-trial proceedings for a defendant named Maxwell. After the Government requested a hearing regarding a juror's inaccurate questionnaire answers, Maxwell moved for a new trial. The District Court held a hearing where Juror 50 testified his inaccurate answers about past experiences with sexual abuse were an inadvertent mistake; the court found him credible, denied Maxwell's motion, and subsequently sentenced her to 240 months in prison.
This legal document details the District Court's handling of a jury note during the trial of Maxwell. The jury questioned whether Maxwell could be found guilty on Count Four if she only aided in the victim Jane's return flight, not the initial flight to New Mexico where the criminal intent was present. The court declined to answer directly, finding the question too difficult to 'parse factually and legally,' and instead referred the jury back to the original instructions for that count.
This page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discusses a Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' alleged erroneous responses during jury selection (voir dire). The text argues that the District Court correctly applied the 'McDonough' standard, finding the juror's errors were not deliberate and that accurate answers would not have led to a dismissal for cause. It also notes that Ghislaine Maxwell did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed histories of sexual abuse.
| 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 |
Juror 50 told the press he did not recall a question about his own sexual abuse but did recall one about the abuse of friends and family members.
Juror 50 provided inaccurate answers to Questions 25, 48, and 49 of the questionnaire.
The document discusses testimony from Juror 50 about statements he made to journalists, where he broadcast his experiences and the role he played in jury deliberations.
Juror 50 explained to The Independent the jury's reasoning for their verdict, including why they did not convict on count two and why they convicted on other counts, citing the corroboration of victims' testimonies.
Juror 50 answered 'no' to three questions on the questionnaire regarding whether he or a friend/family member had been a victim of a crime, sexual abuse/assault, or accused of sexual harassment/abuse.
Shortly after the trial, Juror 50 participated in several media interviews where he readily disclosed his history of sexual abuse, using his real name and pictures.
After the trial, Juror 50 decided to speak to the international press to 'tell his story', which is presented as evidence of his bias and identification with the victims.
Juror 50 posted a comment on social media to Annie Farmer, a witness in the case, in which he “thanked her for sharing [her] story.”
The Defendant contends that Juror 50's decision to give interviews post-trial, using his picture and first name, is evidence of bias.
Juror 50 described the jury's deliberation process, stating they performed their "due diligence," felt sympathy for the defendant but took their job seriously, methodically reviewed evidence, and were not pressured into a verdict, ultimately concluding the prosecution proved its case.
A motion filed by Juror 50 to intervene in the criminal case, which the Court denied.
Maxwell contends that had Juror 50 answered the questionnaire accurately, it would have provided a basis for a for-cause challenge.
Juror 50 made false statements and failed to give truthful answers on the juror questionnaire.
Juror 50 stated he went into the trial believing Maxwell was innocent until proven guilty and that his own past experiences did not affect his impartiality.
Juror 50 provided an answer to Question 48 on the juror questionnaire that is allegedly inconsistent with his public statements.
Juror 50 made several public statements, including one on video, about being a victim of sexual abuse.
Juror 50 recounted a version of his abuse in media interviews, which is referenced as a basis for arguing he should have been excused from the jury.
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.
On Twitter, Annie Farmer shared an article that contained an interview with Juror 50.
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.
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.
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.
On Twitter, Annie Farmer shared an article that contained an interview with Juror 50.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity