Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

[emmawoodhouse]

I was just thinking that it was about time for a verdict. What's charge 2?

[BetterButter]

6 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

What's charge 2?

Count 2 was: "Enticement of an Individual Under the Age of 17 (Jane only) to Travel with Intent to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity."

[theredhead77]

53 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Verdict in the Ghislaine Maxwell Case:

GUILTY on 5 of six counts.   Not guilty on transporting a minor for sex (I can see that.  It was Epstein's plane).   

 

The jury had been slowly going through all the evidence.   Then the judge told them they might have to come in even on New Year's Day and Sunday.    They  moved it along a bit.  

 

WHEW.   SOME justice for the victims.

 

Good. Between her and the Duggar verdict December has been a good month for some justice.

[ifionlyknew]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

Verdict in the Ghislaine Maxwell Case:

GUILTY on 5 of six counts.   Not guilty on transporting a minor for sex (I can see that.  It was Epstein's plane).   

 

The jury had been slowly going through all the evidence.   Then the judge told them they might have to come in even on New Year's Day and Sunday.    They  moved it along a bit.  

 

WHEW.   SOME justice for the victims.

 

Let's hope she sings like a canary.  Bet there are a lot of nervous people right now 

[merylinkid]

Why would she sing?   The time to sing was BEFORE conviction.   Now she is subject to the guidelines.   She probably kept silent believing she would be protected.   Since she found out its not true, there is no point in singing.  It won't help her.   

Also, I said this before, she has nothing the feds want.   SHE is the top of the pyramid with Epstein dead.   SHE is the one you wanted others to sing about in order to secure a conviction.   You don't have the Queen Pin sing to get the underlings.   

But I do wonder if Prince Andrew has suddenly discovered  how to sweat?

Edited December 29, 2021 by merylinkid

[Mabinogia]

25 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Since she found out its not true, there is no point in singing.  It won't help her.   

Depends on if she has nothing to lose at this point and wants others to suffer along side her. No point protecting anyone now if they didn't help her get away with anything. 

I don't expect her to sing, but I am also all for the names of all involved being named over and over so they can't hide anymore. 

[SusanM]

2 hours ago, theredhead77 said:

Good. Between her and the Duggar verdict December has been a good month for some justice.

Definitely feeling this way as well. 

From:  https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ghislane-maxwell-s-guilty-verdict-exposes-defense-s-victim-blaming-ncna1286352

Quote

And that leads us back to her defense. Maxwell's lawyers seem to have believed her best hope was to blame and discredit the alleged victims. But that’s a defense strategy that doesn’t appear to be as effective as it once was.

Let's hope so.

[andromeda331]

So happy and relieved over the Maxwell verdict! Thank you God! Thank you to the Jury! 

[Vermicious Knid]

Possibility of 65 years. She's still facing one more trial over 2 counts of perjury. So there could be more time if she's found guilty for that too. Considering she's now been convicted of sex trafficking of minors and the perjury is about lying under oath about Epstein’s abuse of underage girls signs would look good.

[MissAlmond]

Really?  Having Alan Dershowitz on to analyze the Maxwell verdict? The BBC ain't what it used to be.  

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19815074.alan-dershowitz-interviewed-bbc-despite-connections-jeffrey-epstein-case/

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19815443.bbc-admits-fault-interview-jeffrey-epsteins-lawyer-alan-dershowitz/

[merylinkid]

The BBC has its own issues.   So putting Dershowitz on made perfect sense to them.

He actually said this verdict calls into credibility Virginia Giuffre's testimony.   REALLY.   Considering the one Not guilty verdict involved Annie Farmer and NOT Virginia Giuffre, that's just wishful thinking on Dershowitz's part.   As one reporter pointed out, Ms. Giuffre testified for the prosecution so the jury considered her credibility and most likely DID find her credible.   

[ifionlyknew]

7 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The BBC has its own issues.   So putting Dershowitz on made perfect sense to them.

He actually said this verdict calls into credibility Virginia Giuffre's testimony.   REALLY.   Considering the one Not guilty verdict involved Annie Farmer and NOT Virginia Giuffre, that's just wishful thinking on Dershowitz's part.   As one reporter pointed out, Ms. Giuffre testified for the prosecution so the jury considered her credibility and most likely DID find her credible.   

I don't think Dershowitz should be giving any "analysis" related to Virginia Giuffre.  Actually I don't think he should be given any airtime to talk about anything related to Epstein.  Anything he says is going to be self serving.  

[Llywela]

5 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

The BBC ain't what it used to be.  

There are reasons for this, but we aren't allowed to discuss them here. They have been called out all over social media for the Dershowitz interview. Lots of complaints.

[MissAlmond]

1 hour ago, Llywela said:

There are reasons for this, but we aren't allowed to discuss them here. 

Oh yes. I know. Which is why quoting “the old grey mare” seemed most appropriate. 

Edited December 30, 2021 by MissAlmond

[Passing Strange]

21 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Why would she sing? 

To attempt to reduce her sentence. From Prince Andrew in the spotlight after Ghislaine Maxwell conviction:
 

Quote

 

"Maxwell may now have more to say on the whole subject, following her conviction," Nick Goldstone, UK-based head of dispute resolution at international law firm Ince, told CNN, although those discussions may "take some time to play out," he added.

"If Maxwell has incriminating information and evidence regarding Prince Andrew or indeed any other person who participated in unlawful conduct in association with Jeffrey Epstein, then I think the Prince and any others may well have a lot to fear from a sentence bargaining process," Goldstone in an email.

 

 

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, Passing Strange said:

To attempt to reduce her sentence. From Prince Andrew in the spotlight after Ghislaine Maxwell conviction:
 

 

I have my doubts but I would love for her to start naming people. There's so many more involved in this that need to go to jail for their crimes. It would be great to see them get convicted as well.

[SusanM]

51 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I have my doubts but I would love for her to start naming people. There's so many more involved in this that need to go to jail for their crimes. It would be great to see them get convicted as well.

I share your doubts.  For me I would think if she were to start naming names this would be an admission of guilt, or certainly an open acknowledgement that there were shady doings going on, which AFAIK is something she's denied to this point.  I guess if naming names gave her the chance to have a minimal sentence she might choose to go that route, but I'd be surprised.

Edited December 31, 2021 by SusannahM

[andromeda331]

10 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

I share your doubts.  For me I would think if she were to start naming names this would be an admission of guilt, or certainly an open acknowledgement that there were shady doings going on, which AFAIK is something she's denied to this point.  I guess if naming names gave her the chance to have a minimal sentence she might choose to go that route, but I'd be surprised.

That and it will blow all the appeals that are sure to come from her attorneys. 

[Zella]

I didn't closely follow the Maxwell trial, but the vibe I got from her is not that of someone who's going to talk. I could be wrong. But her drawing the courtroom reporter who was sketching her while maintaining aggressive eye contact was super creepy. I get keeping a stiff upper lip for the sake of appearance regardless of your guilt, but that was some eerie, defiant next-level shit. 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Zella

[MissAlmond]

Federal judge rejects Prince Andrew's request to halt discovery in Virginia Giuffre lawsuit.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/federal-judge-rejects-prince-andrews-request-to-halt-discovery-in-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-until-he-can-grill-accuser-about-where-she-lives/

Civil lawsuit against former Jeffrey Epstein associate dropped following Ghislaine Maxwell verdict.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/civil-lawsuit-against-former-jeffrey-epstein-associate-dropped-following-ghislaine-maxwell-verdict/

Edited December 31, 2021 by MissAlmond

[Vermicious Knid]

He's also being called out about his bullshit defense that he doesn't sweat.
 

Quote

 

Ms Giuffre, 38, alleges that Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager at the homes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Prince Andrew has consistently denied the allegations.

In a 2019 interview with BBC Newsnight, he said a "problem" with her account was that a medical condition at the time meant he could not have been sweating, as she claims he was....

The motion filed by Ms Giuffre's lawyers calls on Prince Andrew to supply "all documents concerning your alleged medical condition of anhidrosis, hypohidrosis, or your inability to sweat".

Prince Andrew's lawyers said he objected to the request "on the grounds that it is harassing and seeks confidential and private information and documents that are irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence".

They added that Prince Andrew had no such documents in his possession to hand over.

 

 

[Dancingjaneway]

Maxwell isn't going to talk & I also think she has a video/hard drive somewhere that states if she is harmed or killed then everyone involved gets outed. I think that's the reason she has made it this far during the trial. Fear of retribution. 

[merylinkid]

On 12/31/2021 at 2:19 PM, Vermicious Knid said:

He's also being called out about his bullshit defense that he doesn't sweat.
 

 

Yeah you don't get to make your medical condition part of your defense and then claim it is irrelevant.   You put it at issue.   Also in your possession means "you can get the documents" not just "physically have them in your hands at this moment."

Andrew clearly did not consult with his advisors before doing that interview.   EVERYTHING he said is now fair game in court, even though he wasn't under oath in the interview.

[Ms Blue Jay]

People were talking about consent in pop culture.  There's a good episode of Frasier "The Harassed".  It's from 2003.  I found video online.  The video sucks, and they've deepened the actors' voices a bit, but you can get the idea.

Frasier hits on somebody at his workplace and they call in someone to teach everyone about sexual harassment in the workplace.  (Played by Mike Judge!)

If you skip to minute 18:00.  There's a great scene.  Bulldog and Roz act out a scene where one colleague asks the other colleague out for a "non stimulating beverage" but "note, you retain the option to say no".  It's a great scene but it's also sadly ironic because Bulldog unfortunately was known for harassing every colleague in sight.

I know this is almost 20 years ago but it does make me sad how the episode wraps up.  Frasier has no boundaries in the workplace and has learned nothing from what happened.  He says to Julia "We are a family at KACL" and he takes it extremely personally that she won't befriend him.  Dude, it's a workplace, and that is her right!

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Ms Blue Jay

[MissAlmond]

Court inquiry requested after Ghislaine Maxwell juror goes public as sexual abuse survivor. 

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/ghislaine-maxwell/court-inquiry-requested-after-ghislaine-maxwell-juror-goes-public-as-survivor-of-sexual-abuse/

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by MissAlmond

[Dancingjaneway]

That juror issue is EXACTLY why I think she has a tape or harddrive somewhere that states if she is harmed/killed all the evidence will come out. If she isn't alive there is no business in an appeal or looking into this juror. She is gonna do whatever it takes to get out of this. She is gonna bribe or do whatever she has to in order to free herself. She just hasn't found the right person/situation yet. This juror could be it. 

[merylinkid]

Even if the juror is found to have lied on his jury questionnnaire, it doesn't mean it influenced deliberations in any way.   TONS of things much worse than this are found "harmless error" by the court.   You know, going to the wrong address on a warrant and seizing drugs.   Well, the cops would have found this person eventually, so  harmless error.   In this case, the jury was pretty meticulous by going through each charge and going over the evidence by asking for lots of testimony to be reread.   Unless this guy said "Hey I'm a sexual assault survivor and I would appreciate it if you convict her" it would be hard to prove that a UNANIMOUS verdict of 12 people was that heavily influenced by one juror.  

Even if a new trial is ordered it does not mean she gets off.   She sits in jail until a new trial which could be 2024 at the rate things are going.   then the new jury convicts her on ALL counts possibly.   Remember they got 5 out of 6 this time.   She might want to be careful what she wishes for.

[ifionlyknew]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

Even if a new trial is ordered it does not mean she gets off.   She sits in jail until a new trial which could be 2024 at the rate things are going.   then the new jury convicts her on ALL counts possibly.   Remember they got 5 out of 6 this time.   She might want to be careful what she wishes for.

And if there is a new trial any potential jurors will most likely know all about this. They are going to know that one jury already convicted her of five of the six charges and a new trial was only ordered because of legal technicality.  Who knows?  Maybe she will finally decide to play whatever cards we all know she is holding.  

[andromeda331]

21 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Even if the juror is found to have lied on his jury questionnnaire, it doesn't mean it influenced deliberations in any way.   TONS of things much worse than this are found "harmless error" by the court.   You know, going to the wrong address on a warrant and seizing drugs.   Well, the cops would have found this person eventually, so  harmless error.   In this case, the jury was pretty meticulous by going through each charge and going over the evidence by asking for lots of testimony to be reread.   Unless this guy said "Hey I'm a sexual assault survivor and I would appreciate it if you convict her" it would be hard to prove that a UNANIMOUS verdict of 12 people was that heavily influenced by one juror.  

Even if a new trial is ordered it does not mean she gets off.   She sits in jail until a new trial which could be 2024 at the rate things are going.   then the new jury convicts her on ALL counts possibly.   Remember they got 5 out of 6 this time.   She might want to be careful what she wishes for.

I really hope so.

[Peace 47]

On 1/6/2022 at 7:23 AM, merylinkid said:

Even if the juror is found to have lied on his jury questionnnaire, it doesn't mean it influenced deliberations in any way.   TONS of things much worse than this are found "harmless error" by the court.

I get your point, but the article linked above seems to point to this being an extremely serious issue that could likely entitle Maxwell to a new trial.  From the article:

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,'” Pagliuca’s letter states.

If that is the standard, I would think the two prongs of the test have been met for a new trial.  I might be inclined to think that a competent defense counsel would have challenged for cause the presence of a sexual abuse survivor on the jury, but I don’t know anything about criminal law, so maybe I am off base.  The juror says he doesn’t remember that question being on the juror questionnaire, but it was.  He said he “flew through” the questionnaire responses.

I can’t imagine the heartache of the victims who have testified, the prosecutors who spent months on the case and the other jurors who sacrificed time from their normal lives for this case.  I hope the actions of this negligent-to-idiotic juror haven’t sunk the conviction.

[ifionlyknew]

12 minutes ago, Peace 47 said:

 I hope the actions of this negligent-to-idiotic juror haven’t sunk the conviction.

Of course he had to be the juror to come forward and discuss the deliberations.  Didn't he think his being a sexual abuse victim might have been an issue when being chosen for the jury?

Edited January 7, 2022 by ifionlyknew

[Peace 47]

There are more stories coming out about this, and it seems like a new trial is going to be a forgone conclusion.

This is in The Guardian:

In the interviews the juror gave, the panelist said he revealed to other jurors during weeklong deliberations that he was sexually abused as a child, and he said the information helped him convince some jurors that a victim’s imperfect memory of sexual abuse does not mean it did not happen.

This juror is an executive assistant at The Carlyle Group, according to a Bloomberg article behind a paywall, and has now retained a well-known attorney to represent him.  So for someone seemingly somewhat sophisticated in the business world, it is baffling how negligently he acted in his questionnaire responses and after-trial interviews.  That Bloomberg article behind a paywall also mentions that identifying as a sexual abuse survivor on the questionnaire subjected the respondents to additional sealed questioning by the judge and attorneys.  So it’s not a given he would have been removed for cause, but Maxwell’s attorney not having the opportunity to question him about it is a huge issue in my eyes, since he is saying that his experience swayed deliberations.

There is also a second juror who was also a sexual abuse survivor who brought it up during deliberations, but the articles I’ve read so far are unclear about whether that person disclosed it on their questionnaire. 

[callie lee 29]

4 hours ago, Peace 47 said:

There are more stories coming out about this, and it seems like a new trial is going to be a forgone conclusion.

This is in The Guardian:

 

This juror is an executive assistant at The Carlyle Group, according to a Bloomberg article behind a paywall, and has now retained a well-known attorney to represent him.  So for someone seemingly somewhat sophisticated in the business world, it is baffling how negligently he acted in his questionnaire responses and after-trial interviews.  That Bloomberg article behind a paywall also mentions that identifying as a sexual abuse survivor on the questionnaire subjected the respondents to additional sealed questioning by the judge and attorneys.  So it’s not a given he would have been removed for cause, but Maxwell’s attorney not having the opportunity to question him about it is a huge issue in my eyes, since he is saying that his experience swayed deliberations.

There is also a second juror who was also a sexual abuse survivor who brought it up during deliberations, but the articles I’ve read so far are unclear about whether that person disclosed it on their questionnaire. 

This is what I had initially heard as well. Of he truly did share it during deliberations that's concerning.

 

Question: would a sexual abuse survivor automatically be excused as a juror?

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, callie lee 29 said:

 

 

Question: would a sexual abuse survivor automatically be excused as a juror?

Bias. He or she wouldn’t be able to be objective.

[ifionlyknew]

Is it crazy to think this particular juror did this on purpose?

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, callie lee 29 said:

Question: would a sexual abuse survivor automatically be excused as a juror?

Not automatically. The judge and lawyers would ask question to determine is the person could be unbiased. The lawyers can ask for anyone they think can’t be impartial to be dismissed for cause. That decision is up to the judge. Each side also has a set number of preemptive challenges that can be used to dismiss anyone they feel won’t be favorable to their side without cause (as long as it’s not discrimination). 

It is possible for a judge to determine a sexual abuse survivor can be impartial and to come up late enough in the process that the defense is out of challenges. 

4 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

Is it crazy to think this particular juror did this on purpose?

On purpose to get on the jury and convict or on purpose to cause a mistrial?

[ifionlyknew]

2 hours ago, Dani said:

 

On purpose to get on the jury and convict or on purpose to cause a mistrial?

Either one.  The whole thing just seems too convenient.  

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, callie lee 29 said:

Question: would a sexual abuse survivor automatically be excused as a juror?

It would depend on the judge.   The defense lawyer would want them excluded because of "bias" but that, in itself, is also exclusionary.  It implies that sexual assault survivors couldn't be objective even though non-victims can be biased about sexual assault, perhaps in a different way, as well.

2 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Is it crazy to think this particular juror did this on purpose?

This probably happens more often on juries than we know.  It's just that the nature of this trial is so high profile that the news media wants to interview the jurors and are catching things like this.

Edited January 8, 2022 by Irlandesa

[callie lee 29]

3 hours ago, Dani said:

Not automatically. The judge and lawyers would ask question to determine is the person could be unbiased. The lawyers can ask for anyone they think can’t be impartial to be dismissed for cause. That decision is up to the judge. Each side also has a set number of preemptive challenges that can be used to dismiss anyone they feel won’t be favorable to their side without cause (as long as it’s not discrimination). 

It is possible for a judge to determine a sexual abuse survivor can be impartial and to come up late enough in the process that the defense is out of challenges. 

On purpose to get on the jury and convict or on purpose to cause a mistrial?

See that’s what I was thinking, that it’s not necessarily automatic so I was confused as to why the response so aghast. I wouldn’t think it would (assuming the court found they could be objective). I didn’t know if I was missing something.

[aradia22]

Quote

Bias. He or she wouldn’t be able to be objective.

Quote

Not automatically. The judge and lawyers would ask question to determine is the person could be unbiased. The lawyers can ask for anyone they think can’t be impartial to be dismissed for cause. That decision is up to the judge. Each side also has a set number of preemptive challenges that can be used to dismiss anyone they feel won’t be favorable to their side without cause (as long as it’s not discrimination). 

I understand the assumption of bias but objections have to be within reason or else you get "impartial" and "objective" juries that only look a certain way. And we know they aren't actually objective or impartial. You can eliminate someone with radical convictions but you can't knock out everyone you think won't be definitely favorable to you. That's not a jury of your peers. And it's useless to pretend it doesn't overlap with discrimination even if most attorneys are smart enough to say otherwise (at least in court). 

Quote

It would depend on the judge.   The defense lawyer would want them excluded because of "bias" but that, in itself, is also exclusionary.  It implies that sexual assault survivors couldn't be objective even though non-victims can be biased about sexual assault, perhaps in a different way, as well.

Yes. True objectivity is a lie. Everyone has beliefs, baggage, bias, etc. You can choose how you let it affect your decision making and it's often the clever/privileged people who can twist the rules so they can behave how they wanted to regardless.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Either one.  The whole thing just seems too convenient.  

Weird stuff happens but it would be a really convoluted and risky plan. If he wanted to lie to make sure she got convicted immediately giving interviews admitting to the lie would be asinine. If he wanted there to be a mistrial it doesn’t make sense to convince people to convict and then raise an issue that may or may not result in a new trial. It would make a lot more sense to just deliberately hang the jury when he had the ability to do that without relying on anyone else.

 

2 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I understand the assumption of bias but objections have to be within reason or else you get "impartial" and "objective" juries that only look a certain way. And we know they aren't actually objective or impartial. You can eliminate someone with radical convictions but you can't knock out everyone you think won't be definitely favorable to you. That's not a jury of your peers. And it's useless to pretend it doesn't overlap with discrimination even if most attorneys are smart enough to say otherwise (at least in court). 

That’s why each side has a limit on how many they can eliminate without cause. Generally they are not going to have enough to eliminate everyone who is unfavorable without taking the risk of ending up with someone who be very unfavorable because they were too aggressive. Of course it overlaps with discrimination but most are smart enough to toe the line creating a somewhat balanced jury. 

[possibilities]

The number of people who were sexually abused is so high that if you automatically eliminated all of them, I don't know how you'd actually find a big enough pool of jurors.

https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics

[Zella]

2 hours ago, callie lee 29 said:

I was confused as to why the response so aghast. I wouldn’t think it would (assuming the court found they could be objective). I didn’t know if I was missing something.

Yeah my understanding is that it isn't necessarily a problem that he has a history of being abused--it is a problem if he didn't disclose it when asked directly as part of jury selection. If he did and they didn't catch it and question him more closely on it, that's on them. 

Honestly, as someone who was molested as a child, I'm personally a little insulted by the inadvertent implication that victims automatically shouldn't be allowed to sit on a jury for a sex crimes trial. Would I want to? Not necessarily but to think it renders me and others automatically biased beyond the ability to be objective is bullshit. 

[merylinkid]

13 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Is it crazy to think this particular juror did this on purpose?

Never attribute to malice what can attributed to laziness.   People FLY their the questionnaires without really paying attention to the questions.   People do not read directions.    I tell clients in writing all the time "Sign this form that goes with the rest of this document, do not put ANYTHING else on this form"   They start filling in the rest of the form.   I tell them to sign their name on something to be filed with the court.   Where they need to sign is a line with their name under it -- they start signing EVERYWHERE with a line.   They've even signed the Order which has a line and a JUDGE"S NAME TYPED UNDER IT.    People just don't pay attention.

[shapeshifter]

26 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Never attribute to malice what can attributed to laziness.   People FLY their the questionnaires without really paying attention to the questions.   People do not read directions.    I tell clients in writing all the time "Sign this form that goes with the rest of this document, do not put ANYTHING else on this form"   They start filling in the rest of the form.   I tell them to sign their name on something to be filed with the court.   Where they need to sign is a line with their name under it -- they start signing EVERYWHERE with a line.   They've even signed the Order which has a line and a JUDGE"S NAME TYPED UNDER IT.    People just don't pay attention.

Also, a triggering question about past abuse experiences could be a question someone might skip over.

[possibilities]

Maxwell would try to get the verdict overturned regardless. I'm sure that they are looking for any and every possible angle, no matter how utterly bogus it might be, so the defense calling for it doesn't mean anything. They would call for an appeal on the basis of anything and nothing.

What is more significant is whether or not the court goes along with it. 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, possibilities said:

Maxwell would try to get the verdict overturned regardless. I'm sure that they are looking for any and every possible angle, no matter how utterly bogus it might be, so the defense calling for it doesn't mean anything. They would call for an appeal on the basis of anything and nothing.

What is more significant is whether or not the court goes along with it. 

True but even if the judge doesn’t agree to mistrial this gives the defense a lot of fuel for their appeals process. The prosecutors also put in a request for an inquiry so I doubt that it is completely bogus. The juror in question says that he didn’t have to answer any follow up questions about his history of abuse so something clearly went wrong in the process.  

Edited January 8, 2022 by Guest

[possibilities]

If the juror was not asked any questions, that's the defense team's fault, isn't it? Why would they challenge the result based on their own failure?

And if the jury followed all the instructions they were given about how to deliberate, then the juror did nothing wrong. 

 

 

[possibilities]

With regard to an appeal, I'm not 100% sure what you have to do to get one, but I thought you had to have evidence of misconduct or a technical mistake, or maybe new evidence.

So if it's determined that the defense failed to question the juror, and nothing was hidden or lied about in the selection process, that wouldn't give grounds for an appeal. Though, I guess Maxwell could try to claim ineffective counsel.

If the jury was not given proper instructions (or failed to follow them), that might get a mistrial ruling and aid her in getting a new trial. That would be the fault of the judge or the jurors, and not the lawyers.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

If the juror was not asked any questions, that's the defense team's fault, isn't it? Why would they challenge the result based on their own failure?

And if the jury followed all the instructions they were given about how to deliberate, then the juror did nothing wrong. 

As you mentioned ineffective counsel is also a legal argument for appeal. If the juror answered honestly then the question becomes why the normal follow-up didn’t happened. Any answer gives her room to argue for a mistrial. 

Based on everything he’s said it seems more likely that he intentionally or unintentionally lied on the questionnaire. Every answer creates a complication and gives her way too much room to make a legitimate argument during appeals.