Judge Considers Tossing Ghislaine Maxwell's Guilty Verdict for a do over

Drama, Drama, Drama, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case because two of the Jurors were supposedly also abused as kids and through their efforts evidently help sway the other jurors into believing the testimony of Jane and Carolyn, which were two of the four women who testified against Maxwell yet the jurors were not totally believed until Scotty David and one other juror relayed their own experiences .

Full title : Judge Considers Tossing Ghislaine Maxwell's Guilty Verdict and Re-Doing Trial After Juror Blunder Is Discovered

Last week Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted on five federal sex trafficking charges after the jury concluded that she had helped recruit teenage girls to be sexually abused by Jeffery Epstein.

Maxwell was charged with six federal counts and convicted of five. She could face up to 65 years in prison, NBC News reported.

However, there is now a possibility that Maxwell could file for a mistrial after one juror revealed that his own personal history of being sexually abused helped him convince the jury to convict Maxwell.

www.westernjournal.com...

a reply to: 727Sky
Nothin better for the despicable than a paid jury .

They say there's a two-tier justice system in the US. I disagree.

Fur there to be a "two-tier" system of justice, there had to be some justice to begin with. I fear there no longer is.

Spam

a reply to: 727Sky

Regardless of my personal opinions on the case, the guy lied on the selection form. So it's a miss trial.

I don't think this was a plant, just an SJW who wanted on the jury to posthumously punish epstien.

a reply to: 727Sky

was the question asked at all during jury selection about ever being sexually exploited or abused, or knowing anyone that had been, that the person, or persons lied about?

was there anything in the jury instructions saying people could not mention any personal or other experiences in regards to sexual exploitation or abuse?

if the answer to those two questions is "NO", then there should be no cause for a mistrial.

originally posted by: generik
a reply to: 727Sky

was the question asked at all during jury selection about ever being sexually exploited or abused, or knowing anyone that had been, that the person, or persons lied about?

was there anything in the jury instructions saying people could not mention any personal or other experiences in regards to sexual exploitation or abuse?

if the answer to those two questions is "NO", then there should be no cause for a mistrial.

In NYC potential jurors are given a sheet of questions that both the defence and prosecution get to see. Each side can move to have a potential juror struck if they have some kind of conflict if interest. For example an abuse victim might sympathy with the plaintiff in the case and might not be objective when they make their decision. Or a potential juror who has a conviction for abuse might side with the defence.

The mere fact that her council wasn't given the opportunity to object to this particular juror could be considered grounds for a miss trial.

It all comes down to maybes or what ifs..

There might have been instructions for the jurors not to give personal accounts if it had been known that one of them had a personal account to give. Or that juror might have been replaced with another from the pool.

It stinks, but she has a solid case here..

Justice needs to be done by the book. Even filth should get a fair trial.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

rather easy to check. is such a question on the list of questions, and how it was written and answers given. if such a question is even there. if no question, or not well enough framed, then no go. since both side's lawyers are directly involved in writing and oking those questions.

same with jury instructions, which again both sets of lawyers are involved in. they can easily check all written instructions, just by reading them.and everything done verbally they also have a written record of everything that was said. which is the whole reason the have people there to take notes of exactly what everyone said through the entire trial.

originally posted by: generik
a reply to: AaarghZombies

rather easy to check. is such a question on the list of questions, and how it was written and answers given. if such a question is even there. if no question, or not well enough framed, then no go. since both side's lawyers are directly involved in writing and oking those questions.

same with jury instructions, which again both sets of lawyers are involved in. they can easily check all written instructions, just by reading them.and everything done verbally they also have a written record of everything that was said. which is the whole reason the have people there to take notes of exactly what everyone said through the entire trial.

Im thinking the judge had someone deliver a message to him and he is considering a new trial because he prolly fears for his life.

originally posted by: generik
a reply to: AaarghZombies

rather easy to check. is such a question on the list of questions, and how it was written and answers given. if such a question is even there. if no question, or not well enough framed, then no go. since both side's lawyers are directly involved in writing and oking those questions.

same with jury instructions, which again both sets of lawyers are involved in. they can easily check all written instructions, just by reading them.and everything done verbally they also have a written record of everything that was said. which is the whole reason the have people there to take notes of exactly what everyone said through the entire trial.

Most of this isn't being disputed.

1) There is a question on the form asking if they were the victim of a past assault.
2) The juror answered "No" rather than "Yes". I don't know exactly how the question is worded but the wording isn't being disputed by either side. So make of this what you will.
3) The jury instructions were written based on the fact (not disputed by either side) that all of the jurors answered "No" to the question on whether or not they were assaulted. Based on the information that was available there was no need to write any jury instructions regarding personal experiences, because it was believed that there were no personal experiences to relate.

a reply to: 727Sky
I really don't care if they'd personally physically intervened in ceasing an assault on someone else, sneaking on to a jury with a standing bias & the aim to rig the outcome the way you want it means you are not anything close to juror material, nor deserve any respect OR sympathy for their own experiences.

I'm sorry people, but deliberately meddling like this makes someone scum, not a hero. That stupid # should never have been chosen, now this underage peddling POS is looking at a redo? Like that's not going to end up with a lighter sentence, way to go you activist Karen dip#.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: generik
a reply to: AaarghZombies

rather easy to check. is such a question on the list of questions, and how it was written and answers given. if such a question is even there. if no question, or not well enough framed, then no go. since both side's lawyers are directly involved in writing and oking those questions.

same with jury instructions, which again both sets of lawyers are involved in. they can easily check all written instructions, just by reading them.and everything done verbally they also have a written record of everything that was said. which is the whole reason the have people there to take notes of exactly what everyone said through the entire trial.

Im thinking the judge had someone deliver a message to him and he is considering a new trial because he prolly fears for his life.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Based on the evidence that has been released to the public I personally think that she's guilty, BUT legally, if a juror lied during the selection process then the judge might not have a choice but to declare a mistrial.

This looks like a case of a juror lying in order to avoid getting struck, or maybe simply not reading the selection form questions proply.

As Tim Pool frequently says, never attribute to malice what can be explained through incompetence.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

its just a guess/opinion. i never said it was proven.

a reply to: Nyiah

It's possible that the juror was merely lazy and ticked no to everything without reading it.

I regularly issue forms to people with medical questions on, and I know for a fact that a lot of them don't read them properly because one of the sections part way down the form asks for a signature, and they frequently leave the box blank and sign at the bottom instead, which is where I'm supposed to sign it.

I see this maybe 30% of the time.

a reply to: yuppa

There's a lot of that going round lately.

Could be the Jurors in question may have been bribed/blackmailed/threatened AFTER the trial !!!!!!

A brilliant new strategy although Ghslaine still stays in her private little Hell for who knows how long 🤖

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: yuppa

There's a lot of that going round lately.

Its the new covid variant.*joke btw*