Event Details

This document is an email chain from November 2021 between Assistant United States Attorneys at the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The correspondence concerns a '17(c) letter' (referring to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) regarding subpoenas) and a 'Motion to Quash' attachment. The sender mentions the urgency due to upcoming 'voir dire' (jury selection), likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial which began around this time.

An internal email from an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York dated November 18, 2021. The email discusses a '17(c) letter' and a 'Motion to quash' attached to the email, noting the urgency due to upcoming 'voir dire' (jury selection) proceedings, likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the date and context.

This document is page 17 of a legal brief filed on March 11, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It argues that the defendant has not met the burden of proving that 'Juror 50' deliberately lied during jury selection (voir dire) regarding past sexual abuse, distinguishing between deliberate deceit and honest mistakes based on Second Circuit case law. The Government notes that while Juror 50 made public statements about being a victim, it is not yet proven that his questionnaire answers were deliberately false.

This is a page from a court transcript involving the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The testimony focuses on the staffing of Brune's legal team, identifying Nancy as a paralegal, Ken Renta as the managing clerk responsible for filings, and Dennis Donahue as a jury consultant hired specifically for the case who was present during voir dire. The document is part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated February 24, 2022.

This document is an email thread between members of the U.S. Attorney's Office (SDNY) regarding 'Outside juror research' for the US v. Maxwell trial. The emails, dated November 16-17, 2021, discuss coordinating research on the next 40 potential jurors (starting at #117) in preparation for voir dire proceedings the following day. The thread includes a file attachment related to juror notes and research.

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 9 of a court order (Document 620) filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court rules that while a hearing is warranted regarding Juror 50's potential failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse, the Defendant has not justified an inquiry into Juror 50's social media usage. The Judge notes that Juror 50's minimal Twitter usage and explanation for deleting apps during jury selection do not implicate the 'McDonough' standard for juror misconduct.

This document is page 4 of a filing by the Government in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues against attorney-led jury selection, supporting Court-led 'voir dire' instead. Additionally, the Government argues that individual sequestered voir dire is not warranted for all questions, suggesting that sensitive topics like sexual abuse and pretrial publicity can be handled at the sidebar rather than in a fully sequestered setting.

This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on February 24, 2022. The witness, Ms. Brune (a defense attorney), is being questioned about her failure to inform the Court during jury selection that a Google search revealed a prospective juror (or person with a similar name), Catherine Conrad, was a suspended lawyer. Brune admits she did not ask for further research or alert the Court at that time.

This page from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) argues that Ms. Maxwell was deprived of an impartial jury due to Juror No. 50 providing false answers during voir dire. It details that the juror concealed his history as a victim of child sexual abuse by his step-brother, justifying his false answers on questions 25, 48, and 49 by citing his 'healing process,' distraction, and personal definition of family.

This is a page from a legal filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated February 24, 2022. The document argues that Juror No. 50 falsely answered questions during jury selection (voir dire) and requests subpoenas for the juror's emails with alleged victims, witnesses, or other jurors.

This document is a page from a court transcript dated February 15, 2012, from the case 'United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas'. It was filed as an exhibit (Doc 616-1) in the case 'United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell' (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) on February 4, 2022. The transcript features the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, regarding her conduct as a juror in a previous trial. She admits to omitting the fact that she possessed a Juris Doctor (JD) degree during jury selection (voir dire) and is questioned aggressively about whether this omission constituted a lie to the Court and Judge Pauley. The testimony also covers discrepancies regarding her stated residence (Bronxville vs. Bronx Village).

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.

This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 22-1426) discussing the jury selection process (voir dire), specifically addressing how potential jurors with past experiences of sexual abuse were handled. It notes that defense counsel did not strike jurors who disclosed such history but affirmed their impartiality, citing specific examples of disclosures. The text transitions to a specific discussion regarding 'Juror 50' and their questionnaire responses to Judge Nathan.

This page from a 2023 appellate filing (likely by the government) argues that Ghislaine Maxwell's convictions on Counts Three and Four properly qualify as offenses involving sexual abuse of a child, citing testimony from a victim named 'Jane.' It also begins a section defending the District Court's decision regarding 'Juror 50,' who failed to disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse during jury selection.

This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.