Event Details

This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is a request by Ms. Maxwell to the Court for pre-hearing discovery. She asks the court to authorize subpoenas for the communications of Juror No. 50, who is alleged to have answered a question falsely during voir dire. The request seeks emails and other written communications between Juror No. 50 and any alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors in the case to investigate potential juror misconduct.

This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated March 11, 2022. It contains a screenshot of the Twitter profile for 'Scotty David' (Juror No. 50), showing tweets from Annie Farmer and Lucia Osborne-Crowley discussing the juror's disclosure of his own trauma during an exclusive interview. The text below the image notes that Juror No. 50 changed his handle to '@NycSsddd' and attempted to delete a tweet sent to Ms. Farmer shortly after sending it.

This document is page 63 of a legal filing (Document 642) from March 11, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It argues that submissions by 'Juror No. 50' should remain sealed because they lack merit, the juror has shown a 'lack of reliability' and 'appetite for publicity,' and releasing them could compromise an ongoing investigation into juror misconduct. The document concludes with a legal argument regarding the importance of *voir dire* in ensuring an impartial jury.

This document page is from a legal filing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding juror misconduct and the standard for obtaining a new trial, citing the Supreme Court case *McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood*. The text quotes concurring opinions by Justices Blackmun and Brennan to argue that a juror's intentional dishonesty is not strictly required to order a post-trial hearing on bias.

This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. The text argues that Ms. Maxwell was denied a fair trial because 'Juror 50' made material misstatements by failing to disclose they were a victim of sexual abuse and misrepresenting their social media status. The defense contends that had this information been known, they would have exercised a peremptory challenge to remove Juror 50.

This page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) argues against providing discovery materials (specifically a questionnaire) to 'Juror No. 50.' The prosecution contends that releasing this information would allow the juror to manipulate their testimony and argues that the juror lacks standing, citing various legal precedents. The document suggests Juror No. 50 attempted to destroy evidence and flee the media, and mentions the possibility of future charges for perjury or criminal contempt.

This document is the signature page (page 65 of 66) of a legal filing (Document 642) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on March 11, 2022. It lists the defense counsel representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including Jeffrey Pagliuca, Laura Menninger, Christian Everdell, and Bobbi Sternheim, along with their respective law firms and contact information.

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.

This document is page 62 of a legal filing (Document 642) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated March 11, 2022. It presents legal arguments citing 'Brown v. Maxwell' and 'Lugosch v. Pyramid Co.' regarding the definition of 'judicial documents' and the presumption of public access. The filing argues specifically against releasing 'Juror No. 50's pleadings,' claiming that doing so would generate prejudicial publicity and infringe upon Ms. Maxwell's right to a fair trial.