Event Details
February 24, 2022
Description
Filing of Document 614 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Participants (4)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NACDL | person | 0 | View Entity |
| Legal Counsel | person | 2 | View Entity |
| court | location | 177 | View Entity |
| NACDL | organization | 25 | View Entity |
Source Documents (3)
DOJ-OGR-00009114.jpg
This document is page 7 of a legal filing (Document 614) from February 24, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that 'Juror 50' provided untrue answers during jury selection (voir dire) by denying past sexual abuse and claiming impartiality, facts which were later contradicted by the juror's own press statements. The text cites the 'McDonough test' to argue that these false answers prevented the defense from challenging the juror for cause.
DOJ-OGR-00009109.jpg
This document is the Introduction page of a legal filing (Document 614) submitted on February 24, 2022, by the NACDL in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). The text argues that a fair trial depends on unbiased juries and specifically addresses the controversy surrounding 'Juror No. 50,' stating that he gave untrue answers regarding his own history of sexual abuse victimization during voir dire. The filing emphasizes the difficulty of eliminating bias in sexual abuse cases and the necessity of truthful answers for the judicial process.
DOJ-OGR-00009112.jpg
This document is page 5 of a legal filing (Document 614) submitted on February 24, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text, likely from the NACDL, argues that high-profile trials create pressure on jurors to convict for fame or to avoid public scorn, citing the 'stealth juror' phenomenon. It specifically alleges that 'Juror 50' in the Maxwell trial used social media to express appreciation for gratitude received for convicting Maxwell, and compares the situation to historical cases like O.J. Simpson and Rodney King.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
The defense at trial focused on the credibility of victims who testified against the defendant.
Date unknown
Filing made after U.S. Attorney's Office declined to agree to add Roberts to the case.
0030-12-01 • Unknown
The Court is evaluating the Defendant's flight risk and proposed conditions for release, such as renouncing citizenship and financial oversight.
Date unknown
Filing of Joint Proposed Juror Questionnaire and Voir Dire documents in US v. Maxwell
2021-10-13 • Court
Proposed UMC (Uniform Motion Calendar) Hearing
2009-08-20 • Court (implied)
Scheduled Deposition (conflicts with proposed hearing)
2009-08-20 • Unknown
Date the second sharing order was signed according to email recollection.
2020-02-04 • New York
Evaluation of Maxwell's appeal of a Protective Order.
Date unknown
Voir dire process where Juror 50 stated he had no doubt about his ability to be fair and impartial.
Date unknown
Jury deliberations during which the jury sent a note inquiring about the proper basis to convict under Count Four.
Date unknown
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event