Event Details

This document is page 19 of a legal filing (Doc 616) from February 24, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The text argues that Juror No. 50 deliberately lied on jury selection questionnaires (specifically Questions 25 and 48) regarding his history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse to avoid disqualification. The document cites various legal precedents (Greer, McDonough) to discuss the legal standards for juror bias and the necessity of a new trial.

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).

This document is a page from a legal filing by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team, arguing that Juror No. 50 should not be given access to a sealed questionnaire prior to a potential hearing, as it might allow him to fabricate excuses. The defense concludes that the prosecution is applying a double standard regarding juror misconduct and asserts that Maxwell's Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the juror's presence, requesting the court vacate the conviction (implied by cut-off text).

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.