Ghislaine Maxwell

[LondonJohn]

The judge can instruct the jury how they like, but the jury can return whatever verdict they agree on, and don't have to justify it.

Absolutely correct. But juries tend to understand the importance of their duty, and the importance of taking decisions based on the right reasons.

So even if our notional Vixen-juror held those sorts of beliefs prior to being called up for jury service.... she would have been explicitly told to put such beliefs out of her mind. She - and her fellow jurors - would have been instructed in the law, and in the way they should assess evidence and deliberate, by the trial judge. That instruction would usually take place as the jury was sworn in, plus it most definitely would take place before the judge sent the jury out to deliberate and return a verdict.

As you correctly say though, there's absolutely nothing that would stop Vixen or any of the other jurors from listening to the judge's instructions then disregarding (or forgetting) them completely. But 1) jurors tend to take care to follow those sorts of instructions, and 2) even if one or two rogue jurors either forget or decide to willfully disregard the instructions, the other jurors can and do perform a corrective function. It's not unknown for jurors to request further instruction or repeat instruction mid-way through deliberation, and sometimes this is so that the errant juror(s) can be reminded of their responsibilities.

 

[Bob001]

.....
So we are thrown back on to para a a criminal sex act. The sex act has to be a crime in itself. But here the transporter (assuming they are knowingly and intentionally doing so), does not have to participate themselves. But they have to have to know and intend that the person they themselves are transporting will participate in a criminal sex act.

You really have not been following the case. She is accused of actively participating in sex acts. And even if she had just been a "social secretary" (a long way from the truth) she would have been responsible for assisting Epstein in committing crimes.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-are-charges-ghislaine-maxwell-sex-abuse-trial-2021-11-30/

 

[carlitos]

But it is irrelevant what Epstein's intent was as he is not being tried. It is what Maxwell's intent was. She seems to have been Epstein's PA / social secretary, so her accompanying him has obvious justification.

In terms of para a, the sex act itself has to be criminal. You cannot argue in a circle that transporting someone is a crime if it results in a crime and since transporting them is a crime this proves it is a crime.

So considering the alleged event with prince Andrew. Since the woman was over 16 the sex itself was not a crime therefore there is no transporting someone under 18 with the intent they participate in a criminal sex act. Because the actual act was not criminal in the UK.

For para a - a criminal sex act
The difficulty the prosecution have is that they have to prove Maxwell
1) Knowingly
2) Transported (as opposed to also being transported, she has to be the one doing the transporting ie not merely being the secretary who rings the pilot giving the time of departure and destination)
3) With intent (so even if a criminal act follows this does not meant the intent of travelling was to commit that act.)
4) A sex act that is criminal.

The italicised bit you quoted refers to an illicit sex act (para b) not a criminal sex act (para a). So for the bit that you reference that any US resident or citizen travelling abroad commits a crime if they have sex with someone under 18 ONLY applies if the motivating principle for the travel was to have sex with an under 18 year old. So unless the accused has sex with an under 18 year old and that was the intent of the journey there is no crime. Even if Maxwell knowingly accompanied an under 18 year old if she did not have sex with the under 18 year old that is not an illicit sex act.

So we are thrown back on to para a a criminal sex act. The sex act has to be a crime in itself. But here the transporter (assuming they are knowingly and intentionally doing so), does not have to participate themselves. But they have to have to know and intend that the person they themselves are transporting will participate in a criminal sex act.

Eh?

f) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means—
(1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
​

 

[theprestige]

My god, this is such an incorrect understanding of the law - and the application of law - as to reach dangerous levels of ignorance.

You seriously think juries have the latitude to say (taking your example) "Oh well she was only just underage and she seemed to be enjoying things" and "the poor guy will be ruined if we convict him", and use those as reasons to acquit?

Really???

You clearly know nothing about jury trial, or about law in general. Because - to cut a long story short - your "understanding" here is as wrong as it could possibly be. And were you (god forbid) to be serving on a jury in this sort of trial, the judge would be instructing you and your colleagues - firmly and explicitly - to put that sort of thinking completely out of your minds during deliberations.


Wow. Wow!

Jury nullification is a thing, at least in the US. The jury really does have the leeway to say, "this is technically a crime under the law, but we don't agree this particular act should be criminalized, so we're going to return a verdict of 'not guilty'".

I think the judge then has some leeway to reject the jury's verdict and impose his own, but I'm not sure about that part.

That said, I doubt the jury in this case will be in a "Maxwell did nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished, no matter what the law says" frame of mind at any point during the trial.

 

[smartcooky]

Jury nullification is a thing, at least in the US. The jury really does have the leeway to say, "this is technically a crime under the law, but we don't agree this particular act should be criminalized, so we're going to return a verdict of 'not guilty'".

I think the judge then has some leeway to reject the jury's verdict and impose his own, but I'm not sure about that part.
That said, I doubt the jury in this case will be in a "Maxwell did nothing wrong and shouldn't be punished, no matter what the law says" frame of mind at any point during the trial.

Yes. In the US, a judge can set aside a jury verdict and impose his own. Its called "directed verdict".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/directed_verdict

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes. In the US, a judge can set aside a jury verdict and impose his own. Its called "directed verdict".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/directed_verdict

Judges can only direct a "not-guilty" verdict.

 

[theprestige]

I honestly like all the little ways our system favors the defendant. The jury can override the law, but only to acquit. The judge can override the jury, but only to acquit. An appeal can override a verdict, but only to acquit.

 

[Samson]

Yes. In the US, a judge can set aside a jury verdict and impose his own. Its called "directed verdict".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/directed_verdict

I like that.
But only to set aside guilty.

 

[Bob001]

From day two testimony:

The 14-year-old girl was eating ice cream with friends one afternoon in 1994, around a picnic table at a summer arts camp in Michigan, she said, when a “tall, thin woman” with a “cute little Yorkie” walked by.

The campers asked if they could pet the dog, but soon after the girl’s friends left her alone with the woman, a man joined them, and asked the girl about the camp and her other interests. He said he was a benefactor who gave to the camp and supported young talent. When the girl said she lived in Palm Beach, Fla., the man said, “What a coincidence, we live there too.” He asked for her phone number.

Testifying on Tuesday in the sex-trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the 14-year-old from Florida, now an adult identified in court only as “Jane,” described for jurors how what seemed like a chance encounter with Ms. Maxwell — the woman with the Yorkie — and Jeffrey Epstein led to years of sexual abuse.

The abuse took place at Mr. Epstein’s properties in Florida, New Mexico and New York, and at times involved groups of people, she said. Sometimes, she said, Ms. Maxwell took part in the sex acts........

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-accuser-jane-testimony.html

 

[Bob001]

I honestly like all the little ways our system favors the defendant. The jury can override the law, but only to acquit. The judge can override the jury, but only to acquit. An appeal can override a verdict, but only to acquit.

That's might be true if the case gets to trial. But few do. Most criminal charges are resolved with a plea bargain, often under the threat of going to trial on more serious charges. The "system," broadly speaking, is heavily weighted toward the prosecution, especially if you don't have the money to hire great lawyers.

 

[smartcooky]

From day two testimony:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-accuser-jane-testimony.html

That's a bit specific for false memories, isn't it?

 

[Bob001]

That's a bit specific for false memories, isn't it?

Aww, but kids have such great imaginations!

 

[theprestige]

That's might be true if the case gets to trial. But few do. Most criminal charges are resolved with a plea bargain, often under the threat of going to trial on more serious charges. The "system," broadly speaking, is heavily weighted toward the prosecution, especially if you don't have the money to hire great lawyers.

This seems like a really pointless and irrelevant cherry pick. You chopped out half of a complete sentence to argue against something I never said and don't believe. Why?

 

[Bob001]

This seems like a really pointless and irrelevant cherry pick. You chopped out half of a complete sentence to argue against something I never said and don't believe. Why?

Because you made a broad generalization about "our system." Our system of justice encompasses vastly more than jury trials, and it is widely agreed that much of "our system" is badly broken.

 

[bruto]

Because you made a broad generalization about "our system." Our system of justice encompasses vastly more than jury trials, and it is widely agreed that much of "our system" is badly broken.

True but I think there is a difference here in what we might call the system. One could, in theory at least, change some of those inequities and injustices by changing the way people in the system practice it. It is not the same with the aspects of the system which the prestige cited, which are baked in, so to speak. In any case, he said he liked those particular features, and did not, at least explicitly, extend that to the whole process.

I like those features of the system too, and don't think it's out of place to mention them, especially since it does seem some posters were not entirely aware of how directed verdicts and the like work.

 

[theprestige]

Because you made a broad generalization about "our system."

No I did not. I spoke specifically and narrowly about three specific things in the system that I like. The "broad generalization" is entirely in your head.

 

[Planigale]

Eh?

f) Definition.—As used in this section, the term “illicit sexual conduct” means—
(1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
​

There are two separate offences.

Para a which is intended to stop trafficking, which requires the transport, the intent, and the criminal sex act, but not actual participation in the sex act. A criminal sexual activity.

Para b which is intended to stop sex tourism, which requires a primary motivation to have sex with an under 18 yr old and to have had sex with an under 18 year old. An illicit sexual activity.

These are two separate offences. you cannot take the definition from one and merge into the other.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'd go back to my point though: once the judge has given the jury clear and unequivocal instructions on these matters, most jurors (even the more cerebrally-challenged ones) will take those instructions on board and obey them. That's because the verdict is a very serious and impactful decision, and most people instinctively want to act as fairly - and as within the law - as they can.

Plus, as I also said earlier: even if one or more jurors does speak up in the deliberation with something like "Ah come on! That girl was only just underage by 9 months - should Maxwell really have to spend decades in prison over that 9-month difference?", there will be a corrective measure in the form of the other jurors. Those other jurors will remind the "rogue" juror(s) of their responsibilities and obligations under the law.

Of course there are occasions when juries arrive at the wrong verdict via unlawful deliberation - and (as plenty have correctly pointed out) - there's effectively nothing a trial judge can do about that after the fact. But those occasions are extremely rare relative to the huge number of jury trials that take place.

 

[Craig4]

From day two testimony:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/nyregion/ghislaine-maxwell-accuser-jane-testimony.html

Yeah, the defense is going to have to do better than Maxwell is a stand-in for Epstein after today. The prosecution just took that defense out, folded it up, put it in its wallet and spent it on blow.

 

[Planigale]

You really have not been following the case. She is accused of actively participating in sex acts. And even if she had just been a "social secretary" (a long way from the truth) she would have been responsible for assisting Epstein in committing crimes.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-are-charges-ghislaine-maxwell-sex-abuse-trial-2021-11-30/

Yes, but unless the acts were with an under 18 year old AND the primary motivation for travel was to have sex with an under 18 year old that would not be an offence under para b an illicit sex act. If she travelled for another reason e.g. on military service and happened to have sex with a 17 year old prostitute that is not the offence she is accused of.

Alternatively (which I think is the real prosecution) a criminal sex activity, requires intent, knowledge and to have transported but not participated in a criminal sexual activity. Maxwell may be guilty, the prosecution will have to prove that, BARD. But the elements they have to prove differ depending on the offence.

It seems so far that the prosecution are unlikely to prove that Maxwell herself had sex with an under 18 year old. So an illicit sex act is out.

So they have to prove that Maxwell transported (not that she was co-transported with), with intent AND knowledge that the sexual activity would be criminal.

Maxwell may be guilty that is what the trial is for. What she is not accused of is having sex, nor of rape, nor of sexual assault. I am not familiar with the jurisdictions concerned, nor of the age of consent locally, nor whether having same sex sex is a crime. But under para a the sex has to be criminal. Having a threesome if the participants were above the age of consent is not an offence. no one seems to be accusing Maxwell herself of having sex with persons below the age of consent, which would fall under para b illicit sex if the primary motivation for travel was to have sex.

The main thrust of the prosecution seems to be trafficking, which requires intent, knowledge, transportation, and a criminal sex act. The criminal sex acts were those of Epstein, if he raped those girls. So the prosecution needs to prove that Maxwell had knowledge, (I suspect this is true, I cannot believe that she did not know Epstein was a sexual predator). That she transported, I think this is dubious, I have no doubt Epstein transported, but was the assistant (Maxwell) the transporter? But most difficult for the prosecution was the intent, they have to show that Maxwell intended to carry out a criminal sexual activity.