Event Details
Date Unknown
Description
The voir dire (jury selection) process during which Juror No. 50 allegedly gave false answers under oath.
Participants (2)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | person | 232 | View Entity |
| court | location | 177 | View Entity |
Source Documents (2)
DOJ-OGR-00009891.jpg
This legal document presents an argument on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, asserting that Juror No. 50 engaged in misconduct by providing false answers under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The filing refutes the government's counterarguments, claiming the juror's dishonesty about being a victim of sexual abuse and his use of Twitter demonstrates implied bias and a deliberate pattern of falsehoods that should have resulted in his exclusion from the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00009212.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 24, 2022, is part of a motion on behalf of Ms. Maxwell arguing for a new trial or other relief due to juror misconduct. The filing contends that Juror No. 50 was not impartial, citing his 'pattern and practice of telling falsehoods' under oath during jury selection (voir dire). The document refutes the government's counterarguments and uses legal precedents like McDonough and Greer to support the claim that the juror's deliberate lies are evidence of bias and that the court would have struck him for cause had the truth been known.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
The defense at trial focused on the credibility of victims who testified against the defendant.
Date unknown
The Court is evaluating the Defendant's flight risk and proposed conditions for release, such as renouncing citizenship and financial oversight.
Date 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
The document is an argument concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell, specifically regarding the application of guideline § 4B1.5.
Date unknown
Initial Pretrial Conference set to occur.
2019-12-06 • Court
The process where potential jurors, including Juror No. 50, were questioned. The document discusses how Juror No. 50 answered Question 48 during this time.
Date unknown • Courtroom (implied)
Juror No. 50 publicly discussed his beliefs about the science of memory, stating that his own memory is like a video-tape.
Date unknown • Media
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event