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-00021130.jpg
This legal document, part of case 22-1426, argues that the District Court abused its discretion during a post-trial hearing. The filing contends that the court improperly prevented the defense from cross-examining Juror 50, who, it is argued, would have been dismissed from the jury had he truthfully disclosed the nature of his past abuse during jury selection. The document contrasts the severe abuse suffered by Juror 50 with lesser forms of sexual assault reported by other potential jurors who were not dismissed.
DOJ-OGR-00021126.jpg
This page from a legal document, dated February 28, 2023, argues for a new trial based on the misconduct of 'Juror 50'. It alleges the juror harbored bias and gave untruthful answers during jury selection (voir dire). The document outlines the applicable law, citing the Supreme Court's two-part test from McDonough v. Greenwood for when a juror's false answers warrant a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00021125.jpg
This legal document argues that the defendant, Maxwell, was denied her constitutional right to a fair trial. The basis for this claim is that a juror, identified as Juror 50, made false statements on his juror questionnaire and later revealed in interviews that he used his personal history as a victim of child sexual abuse to persuade other jurors to convict. Although the court held a hearing on the matter, it found the juror's testimony credible and denied the defendant's motion for a new trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009167.jpg
This document is page 48 of a court filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to seal Juror 50's motion to intervene, asserting it is a judicial document that should be public. It also defends the Government's previous decision to publicly file a letter regarding Juror 50's public statements, noting that defense counsel failed to respond to attempts to confer prior to that filing.
DOJ-OGR-00009166.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The defendant seeks to strike a motion to intervene filed by 'Juror 50', claiming it is inappropriate and not a 'judicial document' deserving public access. The author of this filing refutes these claims, arguing that the defendant's cited legal precedents are inapplicable and that Juror 50's motion is relevant to the judicial process and should not be struck.
DOJ-OGR-00009165.jpg
This document is page 46 of a legal filing from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The Government argues that 'Juror 50' should be allowed to review his jury questionnaire before any potential hearing to consult with counsel regarding his Fifth Amendment rights. The text notes that Juror 50 does not recall answering questions about sexual assault and discusses procedural arguments regarding subpoenas and the scope of the inquiry.
DOJ-OGR-00009164.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, discusses a motion by Juror 50 to obtain his own jury questionnaire and voir dire testimony transcript. The defendant opposes the request, framing it as a 'discovery request' that would prejudice an 'investigation' into the juror's conduct. The Government argues that Juror 50 is not a defendant seeking discovery and that the privacy concerns for sealing such documents do not apply to the juror himself.
DOJ-OGR-00009163.jpg
This page is from a Government filing (Document 615) dated February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against the defendant's request to subpoena 'Juror 50's' social media records, citing the Stored Communications Act and privacy concerns. It also discusses a previous motion filed by Juror 50's counsel on January 10, 2022, seeking to intervene to protect the juror's rights against self-incrimination.
DOJ-OGR-00009162.jpg
This document is Page 43 of a legal filing (Document 615) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's request to compel the production of 'Juror 50's' (Scotty David) private emails and social media records (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram). The prosecution characterizes the defense's request as an inadmissible 'fishing expedition' and argues that the juror's post-trial media interviews or comments on a victim's Twitter post do not justify invading his privacy regarding pre-trial or during-trial communications.
DOJ-OGR-00009157.jpg
This document is page 38 of a legal filing from February 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues against the defendant's claim that Juror 50's questionnaire responses prevented proper voir dire, comparing the situation to Jurors 189 and 239, who also answered 'yes' to Question 48 (regarding sexual abuse) but were qualified without objection after brief questioning. The filing asserts that the record disproves the defense's theory that they were deprived of the opportunity to examine Juror 50's views.
DOJ-OGR-00009156.jpg
This document is page 37 of a legal filing (Doc 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that the Court should have further probed 'Juror 50' regarding his ability to set aside past traumatic experiences and fairly evaluate the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus. The filing cites voir dire transcripts from November 16, 2021, where Juror 50 affirmed his ability to be impartial, and references case law (*United States v. Pirk*, *United States v. Barnes*) regarding the limited purpose of voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00009155.jpg
This is page 36 of a legal filing (Document 615) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text is a government argument refuting the defense's claim that 'Juror 50' needs to be probed further regarding their ability to assess witness credibility in sexual assault cases. The government argues that Juror 50 already affirmed this ability in their questionnaire (Question 47) and that any further inquiry regarding the juror's personal history of abuse should be limited and conducted privately (sidebar or in camera).
DOJ-OGR-00009154.jpg
This document is page 35 of a legal filing (Document 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Government argument requesting that the Court limit the scope of an upcoming hearing regarding potential misconduct by 'Juror 50' regarding undisclosed history of sexual abuse. The Government argues the Court should conduct the questioning to protect the juror from harassment and that inquiries must be strictly limited to whether the juror lied on Question 48 or Question 25 of the jury questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00009153.jpg
This legal document is a filing by the Government arguing that the Court should personally conduct a narrow questioning of Juror 50 to investigate potential bias. The Government contends this approach is necessary to prevent juror harassment and protect the integrity of jury deliberations, citing numerous legal precedents where courts have similarly controlled such inquiries. The Government also argues against the defendant's request for "pre-hearing discovery" and calling other jurors as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00009152.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing by the U.S. Government, likely a motion or memorandum. It cites various legal precedents to establish the standards for conducting a post-verdict inquiry into potential juror misconduct. The Government argues that these standards have been met with respect to 'Juror 50' due to an inconsistency between his public statements about being a victim of sexual abuse and his answer on a juror questionnaire, and therefore consents to a hearing to determine if the juror lied.
DOJ-OGR-00009151.jpg
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 32 of a larger document, arguing the legal standard for scheduling a post-verdict hearing regarding potential juror misconduct by 'Juror 50'. It cites numerous precedents from the Second Circuit to establish that such a hearing is only warranted under strict conditions, requiring 'clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible evidence' of impropriety, and is not meant to be a 'fishing expedition' for the defendant.
DOJ-OGR-00009150.jpg
This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the legal standard for 'Inferred Bias' in jurors. It argues that even if 'Juror 50' had disclosed a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, the Court would not have automatically dismissed him for cause without further questioning to establish actual partiality. The text cites precedents like *Torres* and *Greer* to support the trial court's discretion in these matters.
DOJ-OGR-00009149.jpg
This document is page 30 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on Feb 24, 2022. It discusses the defendant's argument that Juror 50 displayed implied bias by allegedly lying, rejecting comparisons to the 'Daugerdas' case and the dismissal of Juror 55. The court concludes that the defendant failed to establish implied bias, with significant portions of the text regarding Juror 55 redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00009146.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues against a finding of implied bias for 'Juror 50'. It outlines the Second Circuit's established 'narrow' view on the matter, citing multiple precedents where the court refused to presume bias based on occupational relationships or personal experiences without a showing of actual prejudice. The document asserts that the current circumstances involving Juror 50 do not meet the high threshold for mandatory disqualification set by the Second Circuit.
DOJ-OGR-00009140.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of the Government's response to a defendant's motion. The Government argues that the defendant has failed to satisfy the 'Second Prong of McDonough,' a legal test, regarding Juror 50, who allegedly gave a false answer on a questionnaire about being a victim of sexual abuse. While finding the defendant's argument unpersuasive, the Government agrees a limited hearing is warranted to determine if the juror's answer was deliberately false and argues the court must decide if it would have granted a challenge for cause, a standard the defendant allegedly omitted.
DOJ-OGR-00009139.jpg
This document is page 20 of a court filing (Document 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's claim that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied on a jury questionnaire regarding past victimization, suggesting that laypersons may not classify their own abuse as a 'crime' in the same way legal professionals do. A significant portion of the page following this argument is heavily redacted.
DOJ-OGR-00009138.jpg
This legal document is a court filing arguing for the credibility of Juror 50 against a defendant's challenge. The filing contends that any inconsistencies in the juror's questionnaire answers should be assessed in a formal hearing, not based on public statements, and cites legal precedents suggesting jurors can make honest mistakes. It further argues that the juror's disclosure of having read about the defendant's connection to Epstein and the illogical nature of deliberately lying only to immediately risk exposure suggest the juror did not intentionally mislead the court.
DOJ-OGR-00009137.jpg
This document is page 18 of a legal filing (Document 615) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It argues that 'Juror 50' made an honest mistake rather than a deliberate falsehood when failing to disclose their history of sexual abuse on the jury questionnaire (specifically Question 48). The text cites transcripts where the juror claims they 'flew through' the form and genuinely did not remember the specific question asking about personal victimization.
DOJ-OGR-00009136.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that there is no basis to find that 'Juror 50' committed a 'deliberate falsehood' during the jury selection process (voir dire). It cites several legal precedents, primarily from the Second Circuit, to establish that juror misconduct requires proving intentional deceit, not just an honest mistake or failure to answer. The document concludes that the current record does not meet this high threshold to prove dishonesty by Juror 50.
DOJ-OGR-00009131.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is an argument against a defendant's motion for a new trial. It cites legal precedent to establish the high standard for granting such motions and uses statements from 'Juror 50' to The Daily Mail to demonstrate the jury's deliberation process was diligent and fair. The juror's account is presented as evidence that the verdict was based on a methodical review of the evidence without undue pressure, thereby undermining the defendant's motion.
| 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