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-00010219.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on March 11, 2022, related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The judge confirms on the record with Juror 50 and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding his answers during jury selection. The court also acknowledges receiving a written application from the government, which is confirmed by government representative Ms. Moe.
DOJ-OGR-00010217.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on March 11, 2022, regarding a motion for a new trial for defendant Ghislaine Maxwell. The hearing's purpose, as stated by the court, is to examine the responses of 'Juror 50' to a jury selection questionnaire, following a court order from February 24, 2022. The transcript begins with counsel for the government, the defense, and Juror 50 stating their appearances for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00010216.jpg
This document is an appearance list for a court proceeding in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell, held on March 8, 2022, in the Southern District of New York. It details the presiding judge, Hon. Alison J. Nathan, and lists all attorneys representing the United States, the defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, and Juror 50. The document also includes the case number and the court reporting agency.
DOJ-OGR-00009846.jpg
This legal document argues against the defendant's position that Juror 50's motion to intervene should be sealed. The author asserts that the motion is a judicial document that should be publicly docketed, citing the case Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and refuting the defendant's claims that it is merely a discovery request or that public filing would interfere with testimony. A footnote defends the Government's prior action of publicly filing a letter about Juror 50's public statements, stating it was appropriate and that an attempt was made to confer with defense counsel beforehand.
DOJ-OGR-00009844.jpg
This document is page 46 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. It discusses the procedural handling of 'Juror 50' regarding a potential hearing about false statements on a jury questionnaire concerning sexual assault history. The Government argues that Juror 50 should be allowed to see his questionnaire before testifying to consult with counsel about Fifth Amendment rights, but agrees with the defense that the juror should not intervene in defining the scope of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009843.jpg
This document is a page from a Government filing in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), dated March 11, 2022. It discusses a dispute regarding 'Juror 50', who has requested access to his own voir dire transcript and juror questionnaire; the defense opposes this, arguing it would prejudice the investigation into the juror's conduct, while the government supports the juror's right to access a document he authored. The text also references a separate motion by The New York Times to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00009841.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's request to compel the production of private communications from 'Juror 50', including emails and social media content from platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The author contends that the requests are an improper and invasive 'fishing expedition' that seeks inadmissible evidence, would harass the juror, and could inhibit future jury deliberations. The document urges the Court to reject all of the defendant's specific requests for information regarding the juror's communications, potential media payments, and social media activity.
DOJ-OGR-00009837.jpg
This document is page 39 of a government legal filing (Document 643) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The prosecution argues against the defendant's motion to call all twelve jurors as witnesses to investigate potential non-disclosure of sexual abuse, labeling it a 'fishing expedition' damaging to the jury process. The text specifically addresses a New York Times article mentioning a second juror's abuse history and argues that questioning should be strictly limited to Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009836.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against the defendant's claim that the court improperly handled the voir dire of Juror 50. It provides transcripts from the voir dire of two other jurors, Juror 189 and Juror 239, as examples of the standard procedure used by the court to assess impartiality. The document asserts that these examples demonstrate the court's process was sufficient and that the defendant's claim is contradicted by the record.
DOJ-OGR-00009835.jpg
This legal document is a court filing that refutes the defendant's argument that the court failed to properly question Juror 50 about potential biases. The filing asserts that Juror 50 repeatedly confirmed his ability to be impartial and decide the case based on the evidence, and that the court's voir dire process was correct in not delving into specific defense theories, citing legal precedent about the purpose of jury selection.
DOJ-OGR-00009834.jpg
This legal document discusses a dispute over whether the Court should conduct a further inquiry into 'Juror 50'. The issue arises from a discrepancy between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his 'no' answer to a related question on the juror questionnaire. The defendant argues for an inquiry to determine potential bias, while the document presents a counterargument that such an inquiry is unnecessary based on the existing record and the juror's other responses.
DOJ-OGR-00009833.jpg
This legal document argues that a hearing to question Juror 50 should be strictly limited in scope and conducted by the Court itself. The author contends the inquiry should only focus on whether the juror intentionally lied in response to specific voir dire questions and was actually biased, citing legal precedent and Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) to prevent improper questioning about jury deliberations. This approach is recommended to avoid harassment of the juror regarding sensitive topics like sexual abuse and to prevent the defendant from introducing inadmissible subjects.
DOJ-OGR-00009832.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrowly tailored questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and is within the Court's discretion, citing several legal precedents from the Second Circuit and district courts to support its position. The filing opposes the defendant's request for 'pre-hearing discovery' and argues against calling other jurors as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00009831.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022. It contains legal arguments citing case law (Gagnon, Moten, Calbas) regarding the standards for post-verdict jury inquiries. The Government argues that the standard for a hearing has been met specifically regarding 'Juror 50' due to inconsistencies between the juror's public statements about being a sexual abuse victim and their answer to Question 48 on the juror questionnaire. The Government consents to a hearing to determine if Juror 50 deliberately lied.
DOJ-OGR-00009829.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing dated March 11, 2022, discusses the legal standard for dismissing a juror based on "inferred bias." It cites several precedents, including *Torres*, *Greer*, and *Ploof*, to establish that such a dismissal is at the discretion of the trial court and requires a high standard of proof, typically developed during voir dire. The text argues that the court would not have struck Juror 50 for inferred bias based on a hypothetical disclosure of sexual abuse, and distinguishes the defendant's reliance on the *Torres* case, where a juror was struck for cause due to involvement in structuring cash deposits.
DOJ-OGR-00009828.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Doc 643) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case, filed on March 11, 2022. It is likely a government response arguing against a retrial, specifically refuting the defendant's claims that 'Juror 50' lied about social media accounts or held implied bias. The text distinguishes the current situation from the 'Daugerdas' precedent and asserts that even if the juror had answered truthfully about social media, they would not have been struck for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009825.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against excusing 'Juror 50' for implied bias. It heavily cites Second Circuit precedent, which maintains a 'narrow' view on the matter, requiring more than just similar personal experiences or occupational relationships to presume bias. The document asserts that the circumstances of Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification established by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009823.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues against a defense motion claiming Juror 50 was biased. The Government asserts that Juror 50's post-trial statements and negative attitude toward the defendant reflect the evidence presented during the trial, not pre-existing bias. It cites legal precedents including *United States v. Stewart* to support the argument that jurors bring subjective lived experiences to deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009822.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no evidence of actual bias from Juror 50 in the trial of a defendant named Maxwell. It cites the juror's public statements affirming his belief in the presumption of innocence, the jury's careful deliberations, and his answers during voir dire as proof of his impartiality. The document contrasts this with the defendant's claims that the juror made prejudicial statements after the trial, such as calling her a 'predator'.
DOJ-OGR-00009820.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, discusses a hypothetical scenario involving 'Juror 50' and whether a past history of sexual abuse, if disclosed, would have led to a successful challenge for cause. The author argues that the Court would not have automatically dismissed the juror, citing its handling of eight other jurors with similar experiences where follow-up questions were used to confirm impartiality. Because Juror 50 did not disclose any such history, the Government now believes a limited hearing is warranted to ask these questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009819.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government in response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that there is no evidence Juror 50 deliberately lied about his social media use, but acknowledges an inconsistency between the juror's public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer to a questionnaire. The Government agrees that a limited evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine if the juror answered falsely and whether it was intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00009818.jpg
This legal document is a filing that refutes a defendant's claims that a juror, Juror 50, lied during the jury selection process (voir dire). The filing argues there is insufficient evidence to prove the juror deliberately lied about not being a victim of a crime or about his social media usage. It specifically addresses the juror's failure to mention an inactive Twitter account and the claim he deleted his Facebook and Instagram accounts, suggesting these were not material or deliberate falsehoods.
DOJ-OGR-00009817.jpg
This legal document argues against a defendant's claim that Juror 50 intentionally lied on a juror questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse in order to serve on the jury. The filing contends that Juror 50's other disclosures, such as his knowledge of the defendant's connection to Epstein, are inconsistent with an intent to deceive. It cites legal precedents to support the idea that juror questionnaires should be viewed in context and suggests the matter of credibility should be resolved in a formal court hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009815.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant has not met the burden of proving that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied during jury selection (voir dire) regarding past sexual abuse, distinguishing between deliberate deceit and honest mistakes based on Second Circuit case law. The Government notes that while Juror 50 made public statements about being a victim, it is not yet proven that his questionnaire answers were deliberately false.
DOJ-OGR-00009810.jpg
This document is a legal filing by the government arguing against a defendant's motion for a new trial. It cites legal precedent establishing a high bar for granting new trials and uses statements made by 'Juror 50' to The Daily Mail to demonstrate that the jury's deliberations were thorough, methodical, and proper. The government contends that the juror's account shows the verdict was based on evidence and not external pressures or improper considerations.
| 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 experience / Sexual abuse history
Juror 50 disclosed his sexual abuse history and realized he may have misanswered questionnaire Question 48.
Jury Service
Statements made by Juror 50 to the media about his jury service.
Juror Screening
Document Juror 50 is seeking a copy of.
Jury Deliberations
Discussed why the jury did not convict on count two (regarding Jane) but convicted on others.
Explanation of questionnaire answers
Testimony regarding why he answered 'No' to questions about family abuse.
Deliberations
Statements regarding personal experiences and deliberations.
Verdict
Proclaimed the guilty verdict was 'for all the victims'.
Jury Questionnaire
Documents containing answers regarding prior experience with sexual assault.
Production of communications
Compelling production of Juror 50's communications and other information.
Jury Selection Questions (25, 48, 49)
Questions regarding history of crime victimization and sexual harassment/abuse accusations.
Interview
Unreleased interview mentioned in a trailer.
Juror experience/questionnaire
Juror 50 appeared surprised that the questionnaire asked about sexual abuse history.
Experience as a juror
Described identifying with witnesses and convincing other jurors based on personal trauma.
Unknown
Juror felt compelled to contact a witness.
Jury Selection
Omissions regarding personal history of abuse.
Juror Bias / Sexual Abuse History
Juror 50 testified that his history of sexual abuse would not affect his impartiality.
Gratitude for conviction
Social media posts expressing appreciation for statements of gratitude received for telling his personal story of abuse and convicting Ms. Maxwell.
Unknown
Thanked her for sharing her story.
Sexual Abuse History
Juror 50 revealed his sexual abuse history publicly.
Juror Questionnaire
Responses regarding impartiality, burden of proof, and media consumption (CNN).
Unsworn statements
Statements made by Juror 50 to media outlets post-trial.
Juror misconduct inquiry
Statements about a second juror.
Juror Questionnaire
Referenced as 'Juror 50's Questionnaire'
Post-verdict statements
Referenced as 'Juror 50's Public Statements Following the Verdict'
Jury Questionnaire (Question 48 and 25)
Questions regarding history of sexual abuse or being a victim of crime.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity