Relationship Details

This document is page 9 of a legal filing from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. It outlines the court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on March 8, 2022, to investigate whether 'Juror 50' provided false statements during jury selection. This action followed a motion for a new trial by the Defendant, which was based on statements made by the juror.

This document is Page 5 of a Court Order filed on February 11, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Court outlines schedules for docketing redacted filings and explicitly denies a motion by 'Juror 50' to intervene in the case regarding a post-verdict inquiry into alleged false voir dire responses. The document also references a motion by the New York Times Company to unseal juror questionnaires.

This document is page 16 of a court ruling in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), addressing potential juror misconduct. The Court analyzes Juror 50's failure to disclose past sexual abuse on a questionnaire, concluding that the errors were not deliberate but rather the result of rushing and carelessness. The judge credits Juror 50's testimony, citing his calm demeanor, consistency, and the fact that he testified under a grant of immunity with the threat of perjury.

This document is page 20 of a Court Order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Judge orders that Juror 50's completed questionnaire be unsealed and docketed, citing that public interest outweighs privacy concerns following the juror's public comments. Additionally, the Court schedules a hearing for March 8, 2022, requiring Juror 50 to testify under oath regarding their answers to specific questions on the juror questionnaire.

This document is the table of contents for a legal filing (Document 609) in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. The filing outlines arguments related to Juror 50's request to intervene and the potential release of their jury questionnaire to counsel under seal. The arguments address jurors' privacy rights, potential criminal exposure, and compliance with a prior order from Judge Nathan.

This is a court order issued by Judge Alison J. Nathan on February 24, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The order commands Juror 50 to appear for a public hearing on March 8, 2022, to provide testimony. It also sets deadlines for the involved parties to submit proposed questions and to request redactions to a temporarily sealed Opinion & Order.

This document is page 3 of a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated April 1, 2022. The text details the Court's findings regarding 'Juror 50,' concluding that the juror's inaccurate answers on a selection questionnaire were due to rushing/distraction rather than deliberate deception. The Court asserts that even if Juror 50 had disclosed his history of sexual abuse accurately, he would not have been struck for cause because he demonstrated the ability to serve fairly and impartially.

This legal document details a court's analysis of whether a juror, identified as Juror 50, intentionally provided false answers on a jury questionnaire regarding his own history of sexual abuse. The Court finds Juror 50's explanation—that it was an inadvertent mistake he only realized during a post-trial interview with the Daily Mail—to be credible and more logical than the Defendant's claim of perjury. The court is not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments and appears to be ruling in favor of the juror's credibility.

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on March 11, 2022. It captures the beginning of an examination of a witness, identified as Juror 50, who has been duly sworn. The court instructs the witness on how to answer questions, specifically warning them not to reveal any information about jury deliberations or their personal thought processes during those deliberations.

This page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) discusses the legal standard for 'Inferred Bias' in jurors. It argues that even if 'Juror 50' had disclosed a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, the Court would not have automatically dismissed him for cause without further questioning to establish actual partiality. The text cites precedents like *Torres* and *Greer* to support the trial court's discretion in these matters.

This legal document is a court ruling from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 1, 2022. The Court rejects the Defendant's (Maxwell's) post-hearing argument that Juror 50 was biased because he failed to follow instructions on a questionnaire. The Court found that while the juror admitted to being distracted during the questionnaire, he was attentive and followed all instructions during the more critical phases of voir dire, the trial, and deliberations, and was therefore able to serve as an unbiased juror.

This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. The filing presents two main arguments on behalf of Ms. Maxwell: first, that a non-prosecution agreement makes her a third-party beneficiary and bars the USAO-SDNY from prosecuting her, and second, that the District Court erred by not removing Juror 50 for cause after the juror provided dishonest testimony and concealed information about being a victim of child sex abuse during voir dire.