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-00009072.jpg
This document is page 6 of a larger court filing (Document 613-1) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on February 24, 2022. It displays a filled-out 'Ability to Serve' questionnaire for Juror ID 50. The juror indicated 'No' to all questions regarding scheduling conflicts, international travel, or hardships that would prevent them from serving during the trial dates of late 2021 through early 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00009055.jpg
This legal document argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because a juror, identified as Juror 50, failed to disclose his own claimed victim status during jury selection. This omission prevented the defense from exercising a peremptory challenge, and the juror later revealed his bias to the media by stating his memory was 'like a video' and that he would advocate for the alleged victims' credibility. The argument cites numerous New Jersey court precedents where judgments were invalidated for similar juror inaccuracies.
DOJ-OGR-00009054.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 613) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose that they were a victim of sexual abuse during voir dire, preventing the defense from using a peremptory challenge to remove them. The document cites legal precedents regarding the Sixth Amendment and the importance of peremptory challenges.
DOJ-OGR-00008999.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal memorandum dated January 13, 2022, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The author argues that pleadings filed by 'Juror 50' do not meet the legal standard for 'judicial documents' and therefore should not be subject to public access. The argument relies on precedent from Second Circuit cases, including United States v. Amodeo and Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, and notes that Ms. Maxwell intends to move to strike the pleadings, which would further support their exclusion from public view.
DOJ-OGR-00008995.jpg
This document is a court order filed on February 24, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell (implied by case number and context). The order mandates 'Juror 50' to appear in person on March 8, 2022, to testify under oath regarding specific issues, likely related to juror misconduct allegations. It also establishes deadlines for the prosecution and defense to submit proposed questions for the juror and to request redactions for a sealed Opinion & Order.
DOJ-OGR-00008990.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 609) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), dated February 24, 2022. It is the conclusion of a motion filed on behalf of 'Juror 50' requesting that the Court release his Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript under seal to his attorney, the Prosecution, and the Defense. The filing argues that privacy concerns should not prevent Juror 50 from accessing his own documents, which are necessary to comply with a prior order from Judge Nathan regarding an inquiry into the juror's conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008989.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that the Court possesses the authority to release the sealed Jury Questionnaire and voir dire testimony of Juror 50. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that such a release is permissible but is subject to a balancing test, weighing public access against juror privacy, security, and potential harassment. The document emphasizes that any limitations on access to these materials must be narrowly defined and justified by a demonstrated need.
DOJ-OGR-00008988.jpg
This page from a legal filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that 'Juror 50' must be allowed to review their own Jury Questionnaire and voir dire transcript. The filing asserts this review is necessary for the juror to address questions regarding their truthfulness about prior sexual abuse, in compliance with a January 5, 2022 order by Judge Nathan. It cites legal precedents regarding third-party intervention and privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00008986.jpg
This legal document argues in favor of allowing 'Juror 50' to intervene in a case to protect his privacy rights concerning a past sexual assault. It cites legal precedents, including the Supreme Court case *Press-Enter. Co.* and the Second Circuit case *United States v. King*, to establish that jurors have compelling privacy interests that justify sealing records on sensitive personal matters. The filing asserts that intervention will also allow Juror 50 to assert his fifth amendment rights before any inquiry is held.
DOJ-OGR-00008985.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Document 609) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues for Juror 50's right to intervene in the action to obtain a copy of his Jury Questionnaire under seal and asserts his right to privacy regarding his history as a sexual assault survivor. The text references an inquiry initiated by Judge Nathan regarding Juror 50's conduct and potential non-disclosure during jury selection, heightened by intense media scrutiny.
DOJ-OGR-00008984.jpg
This legal document provides the factual background for a motion by 'Juror 50' to intervene in a case. After a verdict on December 29, 2021, Juror 50 gave media interviews alleging personal experience with sexual abuse, which prompted the Defense Counsel to send a letter to Judge Nathan seeking a new trial. The judge subsequently issued an order giving Juror 50 until January 26, 2022, to decide if he wants to be heard on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00008983.jpg
This legal document is a motion filed by 'Juror 50' on February 24, 2022, requesting to intervene in a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The juror seeks to protect his privacy rights and right against self-incrimination in light of a potential investigation into juror misconduct. To determine whether to file a brief, Juror 50 requests access to his jury questionnaire and voir dire transcript, asking that they be released under seal to his attorney, the Prosecution, and Defense Counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00008981.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 609) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The filing outlines arguments related to Juror 50's request to intervene and the potential release of their jury questionnaire to counsel under seal. The arguments address jurors' privacy rights, potential criminal exposure, and compliance with a prior order from Judge Nathan.
DOJ-OGR-00008980.jpg
This document is the cover page for a Memorandum of Law filed on February 24, 2022, in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It was filed by attorney Todd Spodek on behalf of 'Juror 50', who is seeking to intervene in the case to release a sealed jury questionnaire and transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00008976.jpg
This is a court order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 24, 2022. The order approves the defendant's proposed redactions to court documents, finding they are necessary to protect juror anonymity and privacy. The court orders the parties to file the redacted briefs and other materials by February 25, 2022, and also states it will docket a motion from 'Juror 50'.
DOJ-OGR-00008975.jpg
This document is a letter dated February 21, 2022, from defense attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim explains that attached documents concerning a Motion for a New Trial contain proposed redactions to protect the integrity of an inquiry into 'Juror 50's conduct' and to protect the privacy of other jurors involved in the voir dire process.
DOJ-OGR-00008972.jpg
This is a court order filed on February 18, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The order addresses proposed redactions to the Defendant's motion for a new trial, rejecting specific redaction requests because the information constitutes legal arguments or is widely reported in the press. The document specifically lists page and line numbers in the Defense Brief where redactions were denied.
DOJ-OGR-00008964.jpg
This document is page 2 of a Government filing from February 16, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Government argues against the defendant's requests to redact specific information from a briefing, including arguments about the jury pool composition (specifically regarding sexual abuse survivors), investigative steps taken by the defense, the defense's view of underlying facts, and discovery requests. The Government asserts these redactions are not authorized by the Court's previous orders or are not narrowly tailored.
DOJ-OGR-00008962.jpg
This is a legal letter dated February 16, 2022, from attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter accompanies documents filed under seal that contain proposed redactions related to Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The redactions are intended to protect the integrity of a fact-finding inquiry into the conduct of 'Juror 50' during the jury selection process.
DOJ-OGR-00008914.jpg
This legal document is a court order from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 11, 2022. The Court denies two separate requests: first, it denies Juror 50's motion to intervene in the criminal case, and second, it denies the Defendant's requests to either strike or seal Juror 50's motion. The Court's reasoning relies on legal precedent, stating that motions to strike are disfavored and that Juror 50's motion qualifies as a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access.
DOJ-OGR-00008913.jpg
This document is Page 5 of a Court Order filed on February 11, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court outlines schedules for docketing redacted filings and explicitly denies a motion by 'Juror 50' to intervene in the case regarding a post-verdict inquiry into alleged false voir dire responses. The document also references a motion by the New York Times Company to unseal juror questionnaires.
DOJ-OGR-00008911.jpg
This is page 3 of a court order filed on Feb 11, 2022, in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Court rules against the Defendant's request to completely seal motion papers related to an inquiry into 'Juror 50,' stating that wholesale sealing is not narrowly tailored to serve the interest of justice. The Judge notes that much of the information is already public and that the Court, as the fact-finder for the inquiry, is already privy to the information regardless of sealing.
DOJ-OGR-00008910.jpg
This legal document, dated February 11, 2022, is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court denies Juror 50's motion to intervene and also denies the Defendant's request to seal that motion, citing the public's right to access judicial documents. The document then details the Court's analysis of a separate request from the Defendant to temporarily seal documents related to a motion for a new trial, outlining the three-part legal test from the Second Circuit used to evaluate such requests.
DOJ-OGR-00008909.jpg
This is a court order filed on February 11, 2022, by Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Judge denies the defendant's motion to seal all documents related to her motion for a new trial in their entirety, ruling that sealing must be narrowly tailored. The document also references a motion to intervene by 'Juror 50' and mentions that media organizations have requested the unsealing of documents.
DOJ-OGR-00010756.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Document 583) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 25, 2022. It argues against the Defendant's request to delay public access to juror questionnaires, specifically citing the misconduct of 'Juror 50' as grounds for a new trial motion. The filing asserts that First Amendment rights and Second Circuit precedent (Lugosch) support immediate unsealing now that the trial has concluded.
| 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