Juror 50
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
DOJ-OGR-00009670.jpg
This document is page 9 of a juror questionnaire for Juror ID 50, filed on March 9, 2022, as part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The prospective juror indicates they have no prior jury service, have never participated in a court case as a witness, plaintiff, or defendant, and have never been involved in or questioned as part of any governmental or law enforcement investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00009668.jpg
This document is page 9 of a filed jury questionnaire (Document 638) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It contains the responses of Juror ID 50 to three specific legal questions (12, 13, and 14) regarding the defendant's right not to testify, the requirement to judge solely on evidence, and the separation of verdict from punishment. Juror 50 answered 'Yes' to accepting all three legal principles.
DOJ-OGR-00009666.jpg
This document is page 7 (filed as page 5 of Document 638) of a jury questionnaire for Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Filled out by 'Juror ID 50', the form shows the juror checking 'No' to questions regarding scheduling conflicts, English language difficulties, medical/mental conditions affecting service, and medication usage that would affect attention.
DOJ-OGR-00009663.jpg
This document is a page from a juror questionnaire for the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, which began on November 29, 2021. It provides a summary of the case, outlining the six counts against Maxwell related to conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to entice and transport minors for sexual activity between 1994 and 2004. The document also reminds the potential juror that Maxwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00009652.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a list of proposed questions to be asked of 'Juror 50' (identified as male) regarding whether his history of childhood sexual abuse, involvement in victim advocacy, or therapy history affected his impartiality during the trial. The text argues that direct questions about fairness yield self-serving answers and proposes specific inquiries into the impact of the abuse on his life and relationships.
DOJ-OGR-00009651.jpg
This legal document, dated March 1, 2022, addresses the potential bias of Juror 50 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details questions posed to Juror 50 regarding his recollection of a jury questionnaire about sexual abuse, particularly in light of an interview he gave to a Daily Mail reporter. The document argues that Juror 50's childhood sexual abuse, similar to that of witnesses, is sufficient grounds for a 'for cause' challenge, citing legal precedent on implied and inferable bias.
DOJ-OGR-00009643.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 1, 2022, by the defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It lists specific proposed questions for 'Juror 50' regarding his prior knowledge of the case, his exposure to media reports about Epstein and Maxwell, and how his own history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse may have influenced his state of mind and sympathy for the victims during jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009642.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It outlines proposed questions for a hearing regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically probing why the juror answered 'No' to questionnaire questions 48 and 25 regarding past sexual abuse and crime victimization, despite admitting to being sexually abused as a child. The document seeks to establish the credibility of the juror's explanations for these discrepancies.
DOJ-OGR-00009639.jpg
This document is a legal filing dated March 1, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell case, given the context of juror misconduct allegations). It outlines proposed questions the defense wants the Court to ask 'Juror 50' to determine if the juror lied on their questionnaire regarding a history of sexual abuse. The filing cites media reports from The Independent and the Daily Mail where the juror allegedly admitted to being a victim of childhood sexual abuse, contradicting their jury questionnaire answers.
DOJ-OGR-00009636.jpg
This legal document is a submission from the Government to the Court in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 1, 2022. The Government proposes a series of questions for the Court to ask Juror 50 regarding potentially inaccurate answers on a written questionnaire (Questions 25 and 48). The proposed questions also aim to determine if the juror's past experiences with sexual abuse could affect their ability to be fair and impartial, while being mindful of rules that prevent inquiry into a jury's deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009621.jpg
This document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim, on behalf of her client Ghislaine Maxwell, to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Sternheim requests a proffer from the counsel for 'Juror 50' to explain why the juror is asserting their Fifth Amendment right, especially since the juror publicly claimed to have answered all questions honestly. In a handwritten note dated March 3, 2022, Judge Nathan denied the request, stating no grounds were offered for it.
DOJ-OGR-00009616.jpg
A legal letter from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, Bobbi Sternheim, to Judge Alison Nathan regarding 'Juror 50.' The letter notes that Juror 50 intends to assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, despite publicly claiming honesty, and that the government is seeking immunity for the juror. Maxwell's defense requests an explanation (proffer) for the Fifth Amendment assertion and the government's willingness to grant immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00009614.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 1, 2022, from attorney Todd A. Spodek of Spodek Law Group to District Judge Alison J. Nathan. The letter concerns the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. Spodek informs the court that his client, identified only as Juror 50, will invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at a court-ordered hearing scheduled for March 8, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009561.jpg
This document is page 20 of a Court Order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Judge orders that Juror 50's completed questionnaire be unsealed and docketed, citing that public interest outweighs privacy concerns following the juror's public comments. Additionally, the Court schedules a hearing for March 8, 2022, requiring Juror 50 to testify under oath regarding their answers to specific questions on the juror questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009560.jpg
This document is page 19 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court denies the Defendant's request for pre-hearing discovery, characterizing it as a 'fishing expedition.' Additionally, the Court rules that 'Juror 50' will be provided a copy of his completed jury questionnaire and that the document must be unsealed (docketed), rejecting the Defendant's argument that this would taint the juror's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009559.jpg
This page is from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely *US v. Maxwell*) denying the Defendant's request to subpoena social media companies for Juror 50's communications. The Court rules that the request is a 'fishing expedition' and procedurally improper under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which generally prohibits private parties (like the Defendant) from subpoenaing content from providers like Facebook or Instagram; only the Government may do so with a warrant.
DOJ-OGR-00009555.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court is rejecting the Defense's argument that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 (regarding juror competency as a witness) violates Maxwell's constitutional rights to due process and confrontation. The judge rules that Juror 50 was a factfinder, not a witness against the defendant, and cites Supreme Court precedents (Crawford, Tanner) to uphold the limitations on using juror affidavits to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009554.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text presents the Government's argument against the Defendant's motion for a new trial, specifically addressing allegations that 'Juror 50' made false statements during voir dire. The filing cites *Warger v. Shauers* and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences (unless 'extraneous') cannot be used to impeach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00009553.jpg
This legal document page argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606 bars the Court from considering statements made by Juror 50 about another juror's comments during deliberations. The text outlines the rule, its specific exceptions (such as extraneous information or racial animus), and concludes that the Defendant's attempt to introduce this evidence does not meet the criteria for any exception and is therefore inadmissible.
DOJ-OGR-00009551.jpg
This court order page denies the Defendant's (Maxwell) request to investigate Juror 50's social media and to examine other jurors regarding a 'second juror' allegedly abused as a minor. The court rules that Juror 50's Instagram posts were personal and do not warrant a 'fishing expedition,' and that the theory regarding a second juror is unfounded speculation based on a New York Times article. Footnote 5 details a timeline of communications between the court and jurors regarding media harassment, noting that these communications will be shared with the parties under seal with redactions to protect juror privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00009550.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court filing (Document 620) from the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 25, 2022. The text discusses a post-trial motion regarding 'Juror 50,' specifically addressing whether the juror lied during voir dire about social media usage. The Court ruled that a hearing is warranted regarding specific questionnaire answers but denied the Defendant's request to probe the juror's social media history, citing that the juror's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps were consistent with their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00009549.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Court orders an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' committed misconduct by failing to disclose a history of sexual abuse and being a crime victim on jury selection questionnaires (Questions 48 and 25). The order cites interviews Juror 50 gave to The Independent and The Daily Mail in January 2022 where he admitted to being abused, which contradicts his sworn jury questionnaire responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009548.jpg
This page is from a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the legal standards for a post-trial evidentiary hearing regarding juror misconduct, specifically citing precedents like 'Ventura' and 'Guzman Loera.' The Court rules that it will conduct a hearing to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false answers to Question 48 on the jury questionnaire, which asked about personal or family history of sexual harassment or abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00009546.jpg
This document is page 5 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated February 25, 2022. The Court denies the Defendant's (Maxwell) motion for an immediate new trial based on the current record but rules that an evidentiary hearing must be held to investigate Juror 50's alleged nondisclosure of sexual abuse history during jury selection. The text cites the 'McDonough standard' and legal precedents requiring hearings when juror impartiality is in doubt.
DOJ-OGR-00009545.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 25, 2022. It discusses a motion for a new trial based on 'Juror 50' allegedly failing to disclose information (specifically regarding childhood sexual abuse) during voir dire. The text outlines the legal standards for such a motion, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 and the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*.
| 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 |
Court Order
Order directing an inquiry into Juror 50.
Jury Service
Juror 50 discussed the questionnaire, stating he 'flew through' it and didn't recall the sexual abuse question.
Guidance regarding media statements
Juror 50 called the Jury Department asking for guidance due to statements he had given to media outlets, inquiring if he needed an attorney and if he could get a copy of his questionnaire.
Jury service and questionnaire
Reuters interviewed Juror 50 on or about January 5, 2022, where he discussed his jury service and stated he 'flew through' the questionnaire and did not recall being asked about personal experiences with sexual abuse.
Juror 50's past sexual abuse
Juror 50 gave interviews to The Independent and The Daily Mail stating that he was sexually abused as a minor, which contradicted his answer on a juror questionnaire.
Request for guidance regarding media statements
Juror asked for guidance regarding statements given to media and if he needed an attorney.
Response to inquiry
Informed juror the Court could not provide guidance or access to the questionnaire.
Post-trial statements
Juror 50 stated that he was sexually abused as a minor.
Request for guidance/attorney
Juror 50 asked for guidance regarding media statements and inquired if he needed an attorney.
Response to inquiry
Informed Juror 50 the Court could not provide guidance or his questionnaire.
Ghislaine Maxwell Juror Breaks Silence To The Independent...
Juror 50 stated that memories of abuse can be 'replayed like a video' and discussed the verdict.
Post-trial interview
Juror 50 discussed his experience and abuse history without using his full name.
N/A
Juror 50 thanked Farmer for sharing her story.
Comment on a post about sharing a story
Juror 50 commented on Annie Farmer's Twitter post, calling her 'brave enough to come forward' and 'thank[ing] her for sharing her[] [story] as well.' He explained he had 'randomly seen' the post and 'felt like [he] wanted to comment.'
Post-verdict interview
Juror stated he was a survivor of child sexual abuse.
Social Media Usage
Statement regarding deleting social media due to a breakup.
Voir Dire
During oral voir dire, Juror 50 affirmed he could be fair and impartial and follow the Court's instructions.
Voir Dire
During oral voir dire, Juror 50 affirmed he could be fair and impartial and follow the Court's instructions.
Voir Dire
Juror 50 stated he used social media but had deleted apps due to a relationship breakup.
Voir Dire
Juror confirmed he could decide the case based on facts and evidence.
Voir Dire
Juror 50 stated he 'just got out of a relationship and I didn’t want to see anything regarding them'.
Jury Questionnaire
Juror 50 filled out the questionnaire, admittedly 'flying through' it.
Question 49
Juror 50 answered a question regarding his history, which the court notes he did not read closely.
Personal experience with sexual abuse
After the verdict, Juror 50 gave interviews to the media where he allegedly discussed his personal experience(s) with sexual abuse.
Juror's personal history of abuse
Following the verdict, 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