JANE ROSENBERG/REUTERS
A Manhattan federal choose has denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s request for a retrial over a juror’s failure to reveal a historical past of sexual abuse throughout jury choice.
On Friday, Choose Alison Nathan issued an opinion and order that put to relaxation months of hypothesis about the way forward for Maxwell’s responsible verdict.
In late December, a jury convicted Maxwell of grooming and trafficking underage ladies for perverted financier Jeffrey Epstein’s intercourse ring. Days later, Maxwell’s attorneys requested a brand new trial as a result of a juror known as Scotty David had given a flurry of media interviews which revealed he was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse however hadn’t disclosed the expertise throughout jury choice. Scotty additionally informed reporters that he used his expertise to assist sway fellow jurors who had been skeptical of sure victims’ testimony.
Maxwell’s camp argues that Scotty, formally often called Juror 50, by no means would have made it to the panel had he stuffed out his juror questionnaire honestly. (Throughout a listening to final month, Scotty testified below oath that he didn’t intend to lie on the shape; he mentioned he “flew via” the questions as a result of he was distracted by noise within the jury choice room.)
In her ruling, Nathan mentioned Scotty “testified credibly on the listening to.”
“Juror 50’s lack of consideration and care in responding precisely to each query on the questionnaire is regrettable, however the Courtroom is assured that the failure to reveal was not deliberate,” Nathan wrote within the submitting.
The choose additionally said that Scotty “was not biased” and “wouldn't have been stricken” from the jury pool even when he had answered questions honestly; the questions he didn't reply precisely embrace whether or not he skilled sexual abuse, assault, or harassment, whether or not a pal or member of the family was accused of such sexual misconduct, and whether or not he’d ever been the sufferer of any crime in any respect.
“Juror 50’s responses on the listening to to the questions relating to his means to be a good and neutral juror, even in mild of his previous expertise of sexual abuse, established that he too may serve pretty and impartially,” Nathan added. “Thus, this Courtroom wouldn't have struck Juror 50 for trigger if he had supplied correct responses to the questionnaire.”
Nathan dominated Juror 50’s testimony addressing why he rushed via the jury type is credible. “He testified that his consideration to the questionnaire was distracted by a number of components, amongst them the a number of hours that he needed to wait within the courthouse’s safety line, to attend within the room to listen to the Courtroom’s educational video, after which to start answering questions. And whereas he waited, he says, he was distracted by his ideas on the current finish of a romantic relationship,” Nathan wrote.
“This rationalization coheres with Juror 50’s testimony that his sexual abuse historical past was not a salient or front-of-mind consideration as he accomplished the questionnaire,” Nathan added. “He repeatedly testified that he doesn't typically take into consideration his sexual abuse.”
Nathan famous that eight potential jurors indicated that they had been sexually assaulted, abused, or harassed on the questionnaire and proceeded to the voir dire portion of jury choice. Maxwell, Nathan mentioned, “didn't problem any of those potential jurors for trigger on the idea of the juror’s reply” to this query.
“To indicate or infer that Juror 50 was biased—just because he was himself a sufferer of sexual abuse in a trial associated to sexual abuse and intercourse trafficking, and regardless of his personal credible testimony below the penalty of perjury, establishing that he could possibly be an even-handed and neutral juror—could be tantamount to concluding that a person with a historical past of sexual abuse can by no means function a good and neutral juror in such a trial,” Nathan wrote. “That isn't the legislation, nor ought to or not it's.”
Earlier than Nathan’s ruling, Maxwell’s lawyer Bobbi Sternheim wrote to the courtroom, asking her to delay her ruling on whether or not the British socialite shall be granted a brand new felony trial due to a pending TV interview with Juror 50.
In response to Sternheim’s letter, Paramount Plus will air an interview with the juror as a part of its sequence Ghislaine: Accomplice in Crime. “The trailer proclaims a ‘bombshell revelation’ from Juror 50 in his ‘solely in-depth interview,’” Sternheim wrote.
“We've got been unable to entry the sequence with the intention to overview the content material of Juror’s 50 statements nor have we discovered whether or not the interview was recorded earlier than he testified at [a previous] listening to,” Sternheim continued. “The sequence was scheduled to air on March 29, however we now have discovered that Paramount is holding off airing the sequence pending the Courtroom’s ruling regarding Juror 50.”
“We convey to the Courtroom’s consideration this beforehand undisclosed interview and request a keep of any ruling pending overview of the interview by the Courtroom and counsel.”
Lower than shockingly, prosecutors opposed the request for a keep.
“Certainly, the defendant’s utility comprises no authorized or factual help past the quotation to a Paramount Plus trailer,” assistant U.S. Attorneys Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, and Andrew Rohrbach wrote.
“If the defendant obtains new info, she might file any applicable motions at the moment, however it's inappropriate to remain this matter primarily based on nothing greater than the defendant’s conjecture.”