More on that Maxwell trial
/
did i mention i was raped when i was 10?
Ghislaine Maxwell will ask for a new trial after two jurors came forward to reveal that they were victims of sexual abuse and that their experiences helped guide other jurors to convict, DailyMail.com can reveal.
The announcement came amid a flurry of Federal court filings on Wednesday following interviews given by juror Scotty David and a second anonymous juror in which both admitted that they shared their experiences of sexual abuse during deliberation.
David told first DailyMail.com and, later, other news outlets that he did not remember the question in the juror questionnaire which specifically asked potential jurors if they or any friend or family member had been the victim of sexual abuse or assault. Though he insisted that he had answered all questions, 'honestly.'
But according to Maxwell's attorneys in their latest letter to Federal court Judge Alison Nathan it does not matter whether any omission was intentional or an honest mistake. If it happened at all it is grounds for a mistrial to be called and a new trial convened.
They state, 'The Supreme Court has held that to be entitled to a new trial, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."'
A challenge for cause is when a potential juror is dismissed because they are deemed incapable of serving or being impartial.
Maxwell's lawyers continue, 'This standard applies even if the juror's conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. Ms. Maxwell... intends to request a new trial under Rule 33 because the "interest of justice to requires."'
Meanwhile the US Attorney General has requested an investigation into a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial's public admission that he 'flew through' the juror questionnaire and 'could not remember' revealing that he had been a victim of sexual abuse.
That letter, obtained by DailyMail.com also filed in Federal Court Wednesday, came as a direct response to interviews given by David in which he revealed that his admission of being a victim of sexual abuse marked a sea-change in deliberations.
Prosecutors have requested David be appointed an attorney, an unusual step for a juror that suggests they may believe he has committed perjury or broken the law in another way.
And in interviews given by a second juror on Wednesday they also expressed the view that sharing their story helped lead uncertain jurors towards a conviction.
An expert has since said Scott's interivews were 'an absolute disaster' and there is a very real possibility that Maxwell's conviction could be tossed.
Lawyer and legal commentator Neama Rahmani, who co-found West Coast Trial Lawyers, based in Los Angeles, told BBC that if David lied on his juror questionnaire and denied being a victim of sexual abuse, 'that would be both perjury and potential grounds for a mistrial'.
'This is why prosecutors cringe when jurors talk to the media after a guilty verdict because jurors may say something that may overturn the conviction,' he said.
It certainly seems as though the lady is guilty of committing horrible acts, so no sympathy here (though no one, even she, should be penned into the Manhattan Detention Center); my sympathy is with the victims, who will have to undergo the trauma of testifying again. But those two jurors made a fair trial impossible, and our judicial system requires that it be started anew.
Here’s a sample of what the presiding judge asked potential jurors, and must certainly have asked the two jurors who — after the fact — admitted that they’d endured sexual abuse. It’s textbook voir dire, specifically designed to weed out potential jurors who might be even slightly predisposed against or in favor of a defendant.
On Tuesday, Judge Alison Nathan started questioning potential panelists, a process meant to filter out candidates who might hold biases that could favor the defense or prosecution. Nearly 50 possible jurors were present, brought into the courtroom one by one.
Nathan asked about familiarity with the case, backgrounds, hobbies and media consumption.
“I’ve watched a lot of Law & Order over the years,” one potential juror said. The woman, 69, is retired.
The judge noted that Law & Order is a “fictional account” of the criminal justice system, then asked if the woman’s partiality to Law & Order would “in any way affect your ability to be fair and impartial?”
“No,” the woman said. “I don’t think so.”
