second juror
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Juror No. 50
|
Co jurors |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Co jurors |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Juror 50
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
New York Times
|
Source media |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Jury deliberation | Jury deliberations during which one juror allegedly made statements that were later reported by J... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jurors answering Question 48 regarding abuse history | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-04-01 | N/A | Voir Dire | Court | View |
| 0023-12-01 | N/A | Jury Deliberations | Jury Room | View |
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-00021537.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief filed by the prosecution on February 25, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues against the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct (specifically regarding 'Juror 50' and a 'second juror' lying during voir dire). The text cites Federal Rule of Evidence 606 and the Supreme Court case Warger v. Shauers to argue that juror testimony regarding internal deliberations or personal experiences is inadmissible and does not constitute 'extraneous prejudicial information.'
DOJ-OGR-00021536.jpg
This legal document is a page from a court filing, likely a judicial opinion or a party's brief, dated February 25, 2022. The text analyzes Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors from testifying about their deliberations to challenge a verdict. The document discusses the rule's specific exceptions, such as external influence or racial bias, in the context of the Defendant's attempt to use statements from 'Juror 50' about what another juror said. The central issue is whether these statements are barred by Rule 606 or fall under one of its exceptions.
DOJ-OGR-00021527.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court order (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing post-trial motions regarding 'Juror 50'. It discusses the juror's media interviews where he admitted to being a sexual abuse victim despite checking 'no' on his questionnaire, prompting the Defendant to file for a new trial on January 19, 2022. The document also details a phone call on January 5, 2022, where Juror 50 contacted the Jury Department seeking guidance and access to his questionnaire, which was denied.
DOJ-OGR-00009219.jpg
This document is page 29 of a defense filing (Document 616) in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues for a hearing and discovery regarding potential juror misconduct, specifically alleging that a second juror (in addition to Juror No. 50) failed to disclose a history of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire. The defense cites a New York Times article and statements by Juror No. 50 as evidence, while rebutting the government's objections to post-trial discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00009218.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 616) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. It argues that Rule of Evidence 606(b) should not prevent an inquiry into juror misconduct, citing constitutional rights and the precedent of *Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado*. The text specifically alleges that 'Juror No. 50' showed bias and lied during *voir dire*, and reveals that a 'second juror' contacted the *New York Times* admitting they were a victim of childhood sexual abuse but failed to disclose this on the jury questionnaire (Question 48).
DOJ-OGR-00009058.jpg
This document is page 50 (PDF page 57) of a legal filing dated February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense requests a hearing to question Juror No. 50 regarding potential bias, alleging that at least two jurors gave false answers during voir dire which violated Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights. The filing argues that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as it pertains to juror qualifications rather than the content of deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009029.jpg
This legal filing from February 2022 argues that Ghislaine Maxwell was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct. It highlights that Juror No. 50 and a second anonymous juror disclosed their own histories of sexual assault during deliberations, which allegedly influenced the jury's discussions. The document cites press interviews and a New York Times article as evidence of these disclosures.
DOJ-OGR-00009898.jpg
This document is page 29 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022, arguing for a new trial or evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct. The defense argues that a second juror (besides Juror No. 50) failed to disclose being a victim of childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, citing a New York Times article and Juror No. 50's statements as evidence. The document also argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to discovery regarding communications outside of deliberations, specifically referencing social media material.
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-00009749.jpg
This document is page 57 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the US v. Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. In the text, Maxwell's defense requests a specific protocol for a hearing to question Juror No. 50 and potentially a second juror regarding allegations that they gave false answers during voir dire. The defense argues that this inquiry is necessary to prove the jury was not fair and impartial under the Sixth Amendment and asserts that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) does not prohibit this inquiry as they are not impeaching the verdict based on deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00009720.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Document 642) dated March 11, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that Maxwell was deprived of a fair trial due to juror misconduct, specifically highlighting that Juror No. 50 and a second anonymous juror disclosed their personal histories of sexual abuse during deliberations, which allegedly influenced the jury's discussions. The page references a New York Times article from January 5, 2022, and contains a significant redaction in the footnotes.
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-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-00009544.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a court filing (Document 620) from February 25, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). It details the discovery that 'Juror 50' gave media interviews admitting to being a sexual abuse victim despite denying it on his juror questionnaire, leading the Defendant to file a motion for a new trial. The document also chronicles communications between Juror 50 and the SDNY Jury Department/District Executive in January 2022, where the juror sought legal guidance and access to his questionnaire.
Jury Service / Abuse History
Juror alerted NYT that they deliberated on the case and were a victim of childhood sexual abuse, which they failed to disclose.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity