Potential Maxwell Verdict Issue (more at link)

[RandPaulsNeighbor]

Last edited Wed Jan 5, 2022, 12:38 PM - Edit history (2)

https://nordot.app/851402998619963392?c=592622757532812385

Note: Reuters Article

A Maxwell juror gave an interview and claimed to have convinced holdout jurors to convict on the sex trafficking charge, despite their initial doubts. The problem, as I see it, is that he seems to be claiming to have introduced outside evidence (personal testimony) to do so.

In a nutshell, he said the he overcame two of the victim's memory issues by describing his own issues with sexual abuse and how it affects his memory.

Now, if similar testimony were in evidence already, it may not be an issue. This would likely have come from an expert in child sex abuse, at trial. I have no way of knowing that, but, if similair expert testimony was in evidence already, one would think, his story would not have been necessary to sway holdouts.

Also, another juror gave testimony to the skeptical jurors about her personal life, wherein she grew up poor. She speculated that, had an Espstein been around her neighborhood, she and other girls would have been likely victims. I see her as less problematic because she was applying her life to proffered evidence.

Perhaps the biggest issue, the male juror claims to not remember being asked if he or any family member had been sexually abused. All jurors were asked on the voi dire questionaire. If he lied, that is a major problem. If you read the article, he is very cagey about being asked.

I suspect, we will be seeing a defense motion filed shortly on, at least, the trafficking charge. I would love to see some attorneys comment here.

Note: The article is not terribly detailed, but Chauvin went after the jury for wearing a BLM shirt. This interview could be a major disaster for the prosecution and justice.

[MineralMan]

1. That's just silly. Jurors are free to discuss a case as they please

in the jury room. They can also mention personal information if they wish. There are no particular limits on the nature of the discussions in the jury room.

So, this won't change anything. Not in any way.

[RandPaulsNeighbor]

2. Cannot lie on a questionnaire

You cannot lie, especially about a major issue in the case. You can give personal beliefs, you cannot introduce evidence. I say the evidentiary issie, alone, is unlikely to change anything, but, combine that with a lying juror, and you have a big problem.

You have a juror, who lied, and convinced the jury using the thing he lied about to cajole a guilty verdict out of reluctant jurors. Now, you have juror that looks like they wanted to be there and wanted a particular outcome.

Of course, maybe, he just forgot about the questionnaire and the follow up questions. But, that seems unlikely. If I were her attorneys, I just found a glimmer of hope.

It all comes down to the questionnaire that he said he does not recall and "flew through." If I am the prosecution, I am recorking the champagne until I look at that questionnaire.

[MineralMan]

3. I did not click your link, because I did not recognize

where it would go. I don't click what are essentially blind links, and yours was just that.

[RandPaulsNeighbor]

4. Reuters

[blogslug]

7. Can you provide a link to the Reuter's article?

I'm not giving clicks to some rando blog entry.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. You've jumped from "if he lied" to "he lied" between the OP and this post. Why?

[IL Dem]

5. In your comments, you referred to "an Epstein juror."

Epstein never went to trial, so why would you talk about this as being an Epstein juror? It muddies the waters. If it happened, it was a Maxwell juror.

[RandPaulsNeighbor]

6. Just a Subconscious Slip, Hard to Seperate the Two.

It was a Maxwell juror. And, if you read the article, he sounds like he is lying. He could just be forgetful, but he comes across as evasive. If he lied about his own abuse, that is huge mistake and could lead to a retrial.