Event Details

This document is page 15 of a legal filing (Document 636) from March 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It contains a list of proposed questions to be asked of 'Juror 50' (identified as male) regarding whether his history of childhood sexual abuse, involvement in victim advocacy, or therapy history affected his impartiality during the trial. The text argues that direct questions about fairness yield self-serving answers and proposes specific inquiries into the impact of the abuse on his life and relationships.

This document is an email dated November 17, 2021, from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The email discusses an outline for a conversation/interview with a redacted individual scheduled for that day. It references the recipient currently being busy with 'jury selection,' which aligns with the timeline of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.

This document is page 17 (labeled page 40 of 56 in the header) of a legal brief, likely from the government (DOJ), arguing against Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. It specifically addresses the District Court's denial of a new trial regarding 'Juror 50', who Maxwell alleges failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text cites legal precedents supporting the court's discretion to deny probing jurors post-verdict.

This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426) dated September 17, 2024. It addresses an appeal argument by Ghislaine Maxwell, who contends she deserves a new trial because 'Juror 50' failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection. The text outlines the legal standard of 'abuse of discretion' and cites precedents indicating that courts are reluctant to investigate jurors post-verdict and grant new trials only in extraordinary circumstances.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Ms. Brune. The testimony covers the credibility of government witnesses (lawyers who pleaded guilty to false statements to the IRS), the division of labor regarding jury selection between Brune and Theresa Trzaskoma, and a specific conversation they had at 'the plaza' regarding potential information.

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.

This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) argues that Juror No. 50 failed to disclose childhood sexual abuse during jury selection. The defense contends that had this information been known, Ms. Maxwell would have successfully challenged the juror for cause due to inherent bias. The text notes that the juror later spoke to the media about his trauma but is now attempting to walk back those comments after being warned by the government of potential legal consequences.

This document is page 6 of a legal filing submitted to Judge Alison J. Nathan on March 1, 2022, by the defense in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It lists specific proposed questions for 'Juror 50' regarding his prior knowledge of the case, his exposure to media reports about Epstein and Maxwell, and how his own history as a victim of childhood sexual abuse may have influenced his state of mind and sympathy for the victims during jury selection.

This document is page 21 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It contains instructions from the Judge to the jury regarding their conduct, specifically forbidding them from discussing the case with one another or outside parties until deliberations begin. The text explicitly lists various communication technologies and social media platforms (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc.) that jurors are prohibited from using to discuss the trial.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony details the composition of the legal defense team, identifying specific partners and associates (Edelstein, Hollander, Kim, Stapp) and their respective office locations (San Francisco and New York). It also mentions communications regarding issues during jury selection.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text contains instructions from the judge to the jury regarding how to evaluate witness testimony and the importance of keeping an open mind until all evidence is presented. Notably, the judge addresses the significant media attention surrounding the case and establishes that witnesses may use pseudonyms or first names only to protect their privacy.

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.

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.