Fogbow

LM K wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:40 pm I'm still seriously pissed off. Being a juror is a major responsibility with enormous consequences.

I am still shocked how often, especially jurors in high-profile/high-stakes cases, ignore the judge's instructions, or don't take the matter as seriously as the circumstances warrant.

I understand human foibles, less than idyllic behavior under stressful circumstances, etc. And when it comes to topics like childhood abuse, some jurors either are ashamed or have suppressed their memories about it.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that a 50-page questionnaire might lead to potential jurors erroneously checking yes/no because the eyes had glazed over. (To counteract that, many questionnaires require more than checking a box, like writing a response.)

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:56 pm

LM K wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:40 pm I'm still seriously pissed off. Being a juror is a major responsibility with enormous consequences.

I am still shocked how often, especially jurors in high-profile/high-stakes cases, ignore the judge's instructions, or don't take the matter as seriously as the circumstances warrant.

I understand human foibles, less than idyllic behavior under stressful circumstances, etc. And when it comes to topics like childhood abuse, some jurors either are ashamed or have suppressed their memories about it.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the argument that a 50-page questionnaire might lead to potential jurors erroneously checking yes/no because the eyes had glazed over. (To counteract that, many questionnaires require more than checking a box, like writing a response.)

That's a smart solution to questionnaire accuracy.

I was thinking about how I would handle being asked about my experience on a juror questionnaire. I loathe answer the sexual abuse question on medical questionnaires.

I'd answer the question honestly. I would not answer questions about my experiences in open court. It's my understanding that juror's are questioned about sexual abuse in private only. I'd be ok with that ... but only on a very basic level.

There's shame. I know I did nothing wrong. I have nothing to be ashamed of. But what we know doesn't always match how we feel.

What happened happened. But I resent being asked to share such intensely personal info ... with strangers. I want every defendant to have a fair trial. And yes, questions about a juror's experience with abuse is very relevant.

But fuck.

I do think Maxwell should receive a new trial. Info might be released after the jurors are asked about deliberations that changes my mind.

If a mistrial is declared, I hope Maxwell will be offered a plea deal and takes the offer. This trial was brutal for her victims.

And good luck finding jurors who haven't heard the recent verdict.

LM K wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 7:45 pm I'd answer the question honestly. I would not answer questions about my experiences in open court. It's my understanding that juror's are questioned about sexual abuse in private only. I'd be ok with that ... but only on a very basic level.

Yes, to a point. The questioning is just you, the attorneys, the judge, and ... the court reporter. Who is recording. Every. Word. And your name (if not chosen to be a juror) and the transcript are publicly available. Unless sealed by the judge, which I would want if it were me.

Pardon me while I put on my tinfoil hat. Anyone else find it…odd…that this guy gave a press interview where he made a point of bringing up his potential influence on other jury members? And now he’s hired a lawyer?

Frankly, I smell “plant”.

Despite that, I agree Maxwell probably is entitled to a mistrial.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 8:48 pm

LM K wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 7:45 pm I'd answer the question honestly. I would not answer questions about my experiences in open court. It's my understanding that juror's are questioned about sexual abuse in private only. I'd be ok with that ... but only on a very basic level.

Yes, to a point. The questioning is just you, the attorneys, the judge, and ... the court reporter. Who is recording. Every. Word. And your name (if not chosen to be a juror) and the transcript are publicly available. Unless sealed by the judge, which I would want if it were me.

I'm not sure how cooperative I'd be answering questions knowing the info would be publicly available. I wouldn't be difficult. I wouldn't lie. But there are limits, imo, to what info I should be forced to disclose.

June bug wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:20 pm Pardon me while I put on my tinfoil hat. Anyone else find it…odd…that this guy gave a press interview where he made a point of bringing up his potential influence on other jury members? And now he’s hired a lawyer?

Frankly, I smell “plant”.

Despite that, I agree Maxwell probably is entitled to a mistrial.

The prosecuion requested that David be provided with counsel. Which is smart. David has made things really, really batshit.

If a potential juror in this trial HAD answered that he/she had been abused, is that an automatic dismissal?

IANAL, but it seems to me that appellate courts deny appeals all the time, even in the face of an error, if the appellate court is satisfied that the mistake was unlikely to change the outcome of the trial.

So, my question is, as I said, would this have automatically disqualified him from serving on the jury? He was not disqualified or rejected by either side for any other reason. So, it seems to me that the judge (and probably an appeals court) needs to decide if he ACTED in a biased manner or had not deliberated in good faith.

If he did not deliberate in good faith, then, of course, the judge should grant a mistrial, but if he did act in good faith, it seems to me that it might not have affected his decision.

noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:08 am If a potential juror in this trial HAD answered that he/she had been abused, is that an automatic dismissal?

Not necessarily. It would really come down to the potential juror's demeanor.

A potential juror who answered calmly, or even somewhat hesitantly (i.e., "reasonably"), wouldn't get bounced automatically due to the content of their answers. (I mean, someone could ask to bounce the juror, but that's not a winning argument.) A party would have to burn a peremptory challenge.

A juror who was obviously distraught while answering, however, could be dismissed for cause. Not because of the content of their answers, but because they showed an inability to set aside their experiences and fairly judge the evidence in the case.

IANAL, but it seems to me that appellate courts deny appeals all the time, even in the face of an error, if the appellate court is satisfied that the mistake was unlikely to change the outcome of the trial.

It is a slightly different standard for this kind of juror misconduct, but, yes, an appellate court could acknowledge error but affirm the outcome.

With a big caveat: Intentional omissions are almost always prejudicial, which is why the prosecutor in this case is going to argue inadvertent (or maybe negligent?) omission.

If he did not deliberate in good faith, then, of course, the judge should grant a mistrial, but if he did act in good faith, it seems to me that it might not have affected his decision.

Bad-faith deliberations are really, really hard to prove. The errant juror basically has to explicitly admit to it, and most say nothing.

So, yes, good-faith errors are more often overlooked. Because people are imperfect, justice does not require a perfect jury.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:21 am

noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:08 am If a potential juror in this trial HAD answered that he/she had been abused, is that an automatic dismissal?

Not necessarily. It would really come down to the potential juror's demeanor.

A potential juror who answered calmly, or even somewhat hesitantly (i.e., "reasonably"), wouldn't get bounced automatically due to the content of their answers. (I mean, someone could ask to bounce the juror, but that's not a winning argument.) A party would have to burn a peremptory challenge.

A juror who was obviously distraught while answering, however, could be dismissed for cause. Not because of the content of their answers, but because they showed an inability to set aside their experiences and fairly judge the evidence in the case.

Also, if the juror answered on the questionnaire that he had been abused, he would have been asked during individual voir dire whether he could judge the case on its facts and not be influenced by his own experience. Of course, they always say yes, and those challenges routinely fail on appeal.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:21 am

noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:08 am If a potential juror in this trial HAD answered that he/she had been abused, is that an automatic dismissal?

Not necessarily. It would really come down to the potential juror's demeanor.

A potential juror who answered calmly, or even somewhat hesitantly (i.e., "reasonably"), wouldn't get bounced automatically due to the content of their answers. (I mean, someone could ask to bounce the juror, but that's not a winning argument.) A party would have to burn a peremptory challenge.

A juror who was obviously distraught while answering, however, could be dismissed for cause. Not because of the content of their answers, but because they showed an inability to set aside their experiences and fairly judge the evidence in the case.

IANAL, but it seems to me that appellate courts deny appeals all the time, even in the face of an error, if the appellate court is satisfied that the mistake was unlikely to change the outcome of the trial.

It is a slightly different standard for this kind of juror misconduct, but, yes, an appellate court could acknowledge error but affirm the outcome.

With a big caveat: Intentional omissions are almost always prejudicial, which is why the prosecutor in this case is going to argue inadvertent (or maybe negligent?) omission.

If he did not deliberate in good faith, then, of course, the judge should grant a mistrial, but if he did act in good faith, it seems to me that it might not have affected his decision.

Bad-faith deliberations are really, really hard to prove. The errant juror basically has to explicitly admit to it, and most say nothing.

So, yes, good-faith errors are more often overlooked. Because people are imperfect, justice does not require a perfect jury.

Thanks for the explanation. That's kinda what I thought.

Again, IANAL, but, with your explanation in mind, I don't see that this error absolutely necessitates a mistrial. As others have pointed out, abuse victims are often extremely reticent to disclose the abuse. It is a personal thing, of a magnitude that I can't begin to imagine. Also, I can't imagine that ANY of the jury 50 page questionaires were completely error-free. This error happens to be a little more closely aligned with the charges that Ms. Maxwell faced, so I quess the issue must be examined.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:40 am Also, if the juror answered on the questionnaire that he had been abused, he would have been asked during individual voir dire whether he could judge the case on its facts and not be influenced by his own experience. Of course, they always say yes, and those challenges routinely fail on appeal.

A judge could say, "I know the juror expressed the ability to judge the case on the facts and be influenced by personal experience, but the juror was looking away and notably trembling. I therefore find the juror's assurances not to be credible and dismiss the juror."

So good trial attorneys prod the judge to make a record so appellate attorneys have more to work with. (And know when to not make a record, as not to give the other side ammunition.)

* * *

noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:46 am Again, IANAL, but, with your explanation in mind, I don't see that this error absolutely necessitates a mistrial. As others have pointed out, abuse victims are often extremely reticent to disclose the abuse. It is a personal thing, of a magnitude that I can't begin to imagine. Also, I can't imagine that ANY of the jury 50 page questionaires were completely error-free. This error happens to be a little more closely aligned with the charges that Ms. Maxwell faced, so I quess the issue must be examined.

This kind of juror dismissal actually was more common not that long ago. Less so now, IMO.

SOAPBOX: The jurors who were abused tend to be women. And (especially then) many judges were men. Not hard to scratch the veneer and see that many male judges simply didn't believe women were fit to be jurors, and tended to believe women couldn't separate themselves from the facts of the case.

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:21 am

noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 1:08 am If a potential juror in this trial HAD answered that he/she had been abused, is that an automatic dismissal?

Not necessarily. It would really come down to the potential juror's demeanor.

A potential juror who answered calmly, or even somewhat hesitantly (i.e., "reasonably"), wouldn't get bounced automatically due to the content of their answers. (I mean, someone could ask to bounce the juror, but that's not a winning argument.) A party would have to burn a peremptory challenge.

A juror who was obviously distraught while answering, however, could be dismissed for cause. Not because of the content of their answers, but because they showed an inability to set aside their experiences and fairly judge the evidence in the case.

IANAL, but it seems to me that appellate courts deny appeals all the time, even in the face of an error, if the appellate court is satisfied that the mistake was unlikely to change the outcome of the trial.

It is a slightly different standard for this kind of juror misconduct, but, yes, an appellate court could acknowledge error but affirm the outcome.

With a big caveat: Intentional omissions are almost always prejudicial, which is why the prosecutor in this case is going to argue inadvertent (or maybe negligent?) omission.

If he did not deliberate in good faith, then, of course, the judge should grant a mistrial, but if he did act in good faith, it seems to me that it might not have affected his decision.

Bad-faith deliberations are really, really hard to prove. The errant juror basically has to explicitly admit to it, and most say nothing.

So, yes, good-faith errors are more often overlooked. Because people are imperfect, justice does not require a perfect jury.

My recent (three days ago) experience with jury selection was nowhere on the same level of this gentleman's experience with sexual abuse. The case was about a young man accused of DUI hit and run, but when I was asked if I or a family member had been accused of a crime, I truthly answered my stepson was incarcerated for drugs. Now keep in mind, because of covid, I really, really didn't want to get picked. I'd already spent seven hours shoulder to shoulder with a crowd of people, only about 15% were masked.

Moving on, the judge asked me if I thought his sentence was fair and I answered that I didn't know. True because I wasn't there. He then asked if I could put that experience aside. "I guess so." Not what they were looking for so I answered "Yes?" (question mark meaning I intentionally rose my tone higher at the end as one does when asking a question.)

They didn't like that answer and kept probing, explaining that I had to keep emotions out of it. And that was when I hesitated pensively and answered that I was an emotional person (true BTW). So I was dismissed. But I wasn't the only parent with a young adult son who had been through the system and all of the others answered they could handle the proceedings with no issues at all and I'm pretty sure some of them were picked

Also , a young woman sat next to me (unmasked). (We were questioned publicly but had the option to request a private session. No one took it.) She told of her former boyfriend who also was incarcerated for drugs and how he had been in and out of the system because every time he was caught, he was thrown in jail for a few months, then put back on the street with no option for rehab, so he ended up back in prison again. She teared up as she told the story. She also was not picked. And when she realized it, she quietly, and well hidden behind the church-like pew in front of us, made the gesture where you make a fist about chest high and pull it down sharply while mouthing "YES!" Then quietly, head-down, got up and walked out with the rest of us.

Is it possible the juror had minimized his abuse and during the trial became fully aware that his experience was "sexual abuse"?

I represented a client last century at the beginnings of domestic abuse awareness. She explained she had been "choked" by her husband. She had gone into hiding with her two boys. When she first told me about the choking, I said, "So?" When found she faced jail time for contempt of court.

I had an expert witness explain to the Court that my client had suffered one of the most potentially lethal forms of abuse - strangling. Throughout my representation of her I did not emotionally relate to that term. When the expert answered the way she did, I was (almost) struck dumb by the memories of my former boyfriend strangling me twice. One time I thought, "I am going to die now." Yet, until that moment in court I did not recognize the true nature of what had happened to me. I experienced an epiphany.

The judge recognized the Stockholm Syndrome and did not find her in contempt.

PTSD and "keep on swimming" does odd things to your framing of your experiences.

RVInit wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 11:34 am

Asking Trump to preemptively pardon Maxwell was a risky thing for Dershowitz to do if Maxwell had the goods on him.

If you are familiar with Julie Brown's extensive investigative reporting on this case, you would know that Ghislaine Maxwell knows exactly what she would be up against. Whatever she knows about anybody she will not bother to say anything, given what has happened to every victim who spoke out. Even the ones who NEVER spoke to the public and ONLY spoke to detectives ended up threatened by Epstein's thugs and lawyers due to the fact that prosecutors tipped him off on every single thing every single person ever said.

Anybody thinking that Maxwell would "talk" under any circumstances is deluded or doesn't know much about this case.

Even after Epstein has dropped from a window? Does he still command the Deep police State?

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:47 pm Even after Epstein has dropped from a window? Does he still command the Deep police State?

Maybe you should read some of the excellent reporting that is based on emails obtained through FOIA and had complete cooperation from the lead detective and the person who was the Chief of Police at the time. You don't have to refer to the people who buried the case as "deep state". The detective and former police chief were not shy about naming names.

If you want to talk about who threatened the victims, many of those people are also named, and also still alive.

RVInit wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:12 pm If you are familiar with Julie Brown's extensive investigative reporting on this case, you would know that Ghislaine Maxwell knows exactly what she would be up against. Whatever she knows about anybody she will not bother to say anything, given what has happened to every victim who spoke out. Even the ones who NEVER spoke to the public and ONLY spoke to detectives ended up threatened by Epstein's thugs and lawyers due to the fact that prosecutors tipped him off on every single thing every single person ever said.

Anybody thinking that Maxwell would "talk" under any circumstances is deluded or doesn't know much about this case.

All I’m saying is that a pardon would shield her, but it wouldn’t shield Dershowitz. She couldn’t invoke her fifth amendment right to remain silent if she were pardoned, and she could be compelled to testify about everything she knew about everyone. And by the time this pardon request came (near the end of Trump’s presidency, according to the article), Epstein was long dead.

I think whatever machine that was in place to threaten victims or obstruct justice likely died with Epstein.

This is from a new civil filing from the CIVIL lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell, which remains the subject of an open-records battle.

Virginia Giuffre's attorney to judge:

"Now that Maxwell’s criminal trial has come and gone, there is little reason to retain protection over the vast swaths of information about Epstein and Maxwell’s sex-trafficking operation that were originally filed under seal in this case."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/17/us/ghisl ... -M4zTTmXEc

(CNN)Ghislaine Maxwell will no longer fight to keep the names of eight 'John Does' secret and will leave it to the court to decide whether the names should be unsealed, according to a January 12 letter to federal Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York.

The documents containing the names are connected to a 2015 defamation case brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who claimed Epstein sexually abused her while she was a minor and that Maxwell aided in the abuse. The case was settled in 2017.
Maxwell, 60, faces up to 65 years in prison after she was found guilty last month in a New York federal court on five federal charges, including sex trafficking of a minor. The charges were related to her role in Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls between 1994 and 2004.
How redacted flight logs could prove vital in Ghislane Maxwell trial

"After careful review of the detailed objections submitted by Non-Party Does 17, 53, 54, 55, 73, 93 and 151, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell writes to inform the Court that she does not wish to further address those objections," Maxwell attorney Laura Menninger wrote. "Each of the listed Does has counsel who have ably asserted their own respective privacy rights. Ms. Maxwell therefore leaves it to this Court to conduct the appropriate review."

ABC News
@ABC
·
20m
Ghislaine Maxwell has formally requested a new trial, less than a month after her conviction on sex trafficking charges.

The allegedly misconducting juror has indicated the Fifth will be taken. So the prosecutor will immunize the juror to compel the testimony:

The take-the-Fith/compel-testimony dance is common enough in these situations. (It is currently happening in the Scott Peterson case.)

“Ghislaine Maxwell: Juror admits 'mistake' not revealing abuse”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60666414

Motion for New Trial DENINED