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-00021864.jpg
This document is page 17 (labeled page 40 of 56 in the header) of a legal brief, likely from the government (DOJ), arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It specifically addresses the District Court's denial of a new trial regarding 'Juror 50', who Maxwell alleges failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text cites legal precedents supporting the court's discretion to deny probing jurors post-verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021854.jpg
This legal document page describes the conclusion of a criminal trial where the defendant, Maxwell, was found guilty on December 29, 2021, on multiple counts related to sexual abuse. The document highlights a post-verdict issue concerning Juror 50, who revealed in press interviews that he was a survivor of child sexual abuse, contradicting his 'no' answers to related questions on his pre-trial jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021813.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, related to the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It discusses the District Court's refusal to grant a new trial and specifically addresses a jury note sent during deliberations regarding Count Four and the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. Footnotes address a hearing regarding Juror 50's potential misconduct and citations to the court record.
DOJ-OGR-00021812.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standard for granting a new trial based on a juror's incorrect answers during voir dire, referencing the precedent set in McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood. The District Court found that Juror 50's erroneous responses were not deliberate and would not have resulted in being struck for cause. The document also notes that the party, Maxwell, did not challenge other jurors who had disclosed experiences with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment.
DOJ-OGR-00021811.jpg
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It addresses an appeal argument by Ghislaine Maxwell, who contends she deserves a new trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standard of 'abuse of discretion' and cites precedents indicating that courts are reluctant to investigate jurors post-verdict and grant new trials only in extraordinary circumstances.
DOJ-OGR-00021802.jpg
This legal document details post-trial proceedings in the case of an individual named Maxwell. Following the discovery of interviews, the Government requested a hearing regarding Juror 50, who admitted to providing inaccurate answers on a jury questionnaire but claimed it was an inadvertent mistake. The District Court found the juror's testimony credible, denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial, and subsequently sentenced Maxwell to 240 months in prison.
DOJ-OGR-00021801.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, detailing the procedural history of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It describes the jury selection process, the guilty verdict delivered on December 29, 2021, and a specific controversy regarding 'Juror 50,' who publicly disclosed being a sexual abuse survivor after the trial despite denying victimization on the jury questionnaire. Footnotes clarify the specific legal counts Maxwell was convicted on (sex trafficking, etc.) and those acquitted or dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00021773.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, filed July 27, 2023) arguing for a new trial based on juror misconduct. The text specifically attacks the credibility of 'Juror 50,' alleging he gave intentionally false statements under oath regarding his own history of sexual abuse during the jury questionnaire process. It cites legal precedents (McDonough, Jones v. Cooper) to argue that actual or implied bias warrants a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021772.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 30 of Document 87 in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It discusses the legal concept of "inferable bias," where a court can excuse a juror based on a significant risk of partiality, even without an explicit admission of bias. The text cites precedents from cases like Torres and McDonough to support the argument that bias can be inferred from a juror's non-disclosure of critical information during voir dire, and it specifically mentions that Juror 50 has offered an implausible explanation for such a non-disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00021771.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023. It argues that 'Juror 50' should have been excluded from the Maxwell case due to implied bias, specifically citing the 'average person test' and the juror's failure to disclose victimization during voir dire. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Smith v. Phillips, U.S. v. Burr) to support the claim that nondisclosure of sexual abuse victimization deprives the court of vital information.
DOJ-OGR-00021770.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal appellate brief (Case 22-1426) filed on July 27, 2023, arguing that Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction should be overturned due to 'Juror 50's' bias. The text contends that Juror 50 failed to disclose his own history of sexual abuse during voir dire, which later caused him to improperly identify with prosecution witnesses and influence other jurors based on his personal trauma rather than the evidence alone.
DOJ-OGR-00021769.jpg
This legal document argues that the defendant, Maxwell, was denied a fair trial because the court failed to explore potential bias in a seated juror (Juror 50). The filing draws an analogy to the case of Nieves, asserting that the court's refusal to investigate the juror's background related to child sexual abuse—a central theme in Maxwell's case due to her association with Epstein—deprived the defense of the opportunity to challenge the juror for cause. The document contends this failure is particularly significant given the pervasive community bias against those accused of sex trafficking.
DOJ-OGR-00021767.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court abused its discretion by imposing unreasonable limitations on the questioning of Juror 50 during a post-verdict hearing. The filing contends that this prevented the defense for Ms. Maxwell from fully exploring the juror's potential bias, which was evidenced when he disclosed his own history of sexual assault to fellow jurors, thereby influencing their deliberations and the final verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00021766.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated July 27, 2023, argues that the District Court abused its discretion in the case against Maxwell. The argument focuses on the court's handling of Juror 50, whose failure to provide truthful answers during voir dire and whose personal life experiences mirrored trial testimony, should have been grounds for a challenge for cause due to unexplored potential bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021765.jpg
This legal document argues that juror bias can be implied when a juror's personal experiences are similar to the issues in a case. It cites several legal precedents where new trials were granted because jurors failed to disclose relevant personal histories, such as being victims of similar crimes or domestic abuse. The author contends that based on this precedent, 'Juror 50' should have been struck for cause, but notes that the Court inexplicably held otherwise.
DOJ-OGR-00021764.jpg
This legal document argues that Juror 50 should have been disqualified from jury duty due to his failure to disclose his own history of child sexual abuse during voir dire. The document details how Juror 50's traumatic experiences, revealed in a post-verdict hearing, significantly paralleled the abuse described by the government's key witnesses at trial, suggesting he was incapable of being impartial.
DOJ-OGR-00021763.jpg
This document is page 21 of a legal filing (likely an appeal brief in the Ghislaine Maxwell case) dated July 27, 2023. It argues that Juror 50 provided false answers regarding his history of sexual abuse during jury selection and gave contradictory explanations for these falsehoods (e.g., being tired, definitions of family). The text criticizes the Court for accepting these falsehoods as an 'inadvertent mistake' and for refusing to inquire further into Juror 50's post-trial media interviews or allegations regarding a second juror.
DOJ-OGR-00021762.jpg
This page from a legal brief discusses a juror (Juror 50) who allegedly provided false answers on a jury questionnaire regarding sensitive case issues. The text criticizes the immunity deal granted to the juror during a subsequent hearing, describing it as a "Potemkin village" that served the Government's interest in preserving the verdict rather than ensuring truthfulness.
DOJ-OGR-00021749.jpg
This legal document is a preliminary statement in reply for an appeal by Ms. Maxwell. She argues that her prosecution was barred by a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and that the District Court erred in its handling of ambiguities related to it. Additionally, she contends the court abused its discretion regarding Juror 50, citing the juror's false answers on a questionnaire and concealed past trauma as grounds for a valid challenge for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00021745.jpg
This document is a page from the Table of Contents (page ii) of a legal appeal filed on July 27, 2023. It outlines arguments regarding procedural errors by the District Court, specifically concerning the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding bias and the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. The page specifically references Case 22-1426.
DOJ-OGR-00021744.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. The filing presents two main arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell: first, that a non-prosecution agreement makes her a third-party beneficiary and bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and second, that the District Court erred by not removing Juror 50 for cause after the juror provided dishonest testimony and concealed information about being a victim of child sex abuse during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00021723.jpg
This page from a legal document refutes an argument by the defendant, Maxwell, that the trial judge, Judge Nathan, erred by not finding implied bias in Juror 50. The document argues that under existing case law (citing Torres and Greer), a juror's similar personal experience does not automatically necessitate dismissal, and that there were significant differences between Juror 50's childhood abuse and the abuse discussed in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021722.jpg
This legal document details the rejection of defendant Maxwell's appeal arguments concerning Juror 50. Judge Nathan found Maxwell's claim of implied bias, based on the juror's personal history, to be unfounded, noting that the defense failed to pursue follow-up questions during voir dire. The document upholds Judge Nathan's determination that Juror 50 was credible, despite erroneous questionnaire answers, and that his post-verdict statements were properly disregarded.
DOJ-OGR-00021720.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (likely by the Government/DOJ given the footer) in the appeal of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426). It argues against Maxwell's claim for a new trial based on 'Juror 50's' failure to disclose prior sexual abuse. The text cites legal precedents (McDonough, Shaoul, Langford) to establish that a new trial requires 'deliberate dishonesty' by a juror, not just an honest mistake, and asserts that Juror 50 was genuinely surprised by the questionnaire content.
DOJ-OGR-00021719.jpg
This legal document discusses an appeal by a party named Maxwell, who is attempting to overturn a jury verdict due to errors made by Juror 50 on a questionnaire. The document outlines Judge Nathan's findings from a hearing, where she concluded that the juror's errors were inadvertent and his testimony was credible. Judge Nathan's opinion is that there are insufficient grounds to justify overturning the verdict based on this issue.
| 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