Maxwell lawyers will demand mistrial.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/so...ially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/
Ghislaine Maxwell
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,474
More details and analysis here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/nyregion/maxwell-trial-jury-inquiry.html
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
Those are two entirely different things. The NPA only concerns criminal actions. The Settlement and this lawsuit concern civil actions.
SDFL pursued criminal actions against Epstein. They agreed to plea deal. Part of that plea deal (among other things) was that Epstein would pay a settlement to Giuffre for a lawsuit that she had filed against him, and SDFL would agree to not pursue prosecution for certain crimes against Epstein.
SDNY later uncovered evidence and perused criminal actions against Epstein. Epstein claimed that criminal prosecution was barred by his NPA with SDFL. The court review a claim that the NPA was invalid because it violated the Crime Victim Rights Act and reluctantly determined that it was valid. Then there were questions of whether an agreement with SDFL was binding on SDNY and, even if so, whether SDNY was charging for different crimes than those covered by the NPA. My understanding is those were not resolved by the court before Epstein died.
SDNY is not a party to the current civil lawsuit. Because SDNY is not a party, whether the NPA or Settlement is binding on SDNY is irrelevant. The Settlement had a bearing on the NPA because it was a stipulation of the NPA, but the NPA has no bearing on the Settlement. The NPA does not create any jurisdictional limitations on the Settlement.
The only question then is whether the Settlement has any bearing on civil action against Andrew. Andrew was not a party to the Settlement, but the Settlement stipulates that Giuffre may not sue any “Other Potential Defendants”. Exactly what that means is the question currently before the court.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Correct but irrelevant in this case. The NPA is directly referenced in the civil suit settlement.
Correct but ultimately irrelevant. SDNY charged Epstein irrespective of the NPA, because they were not bound by it
True, but again irrelevant. The POINT is that nothing the SDFL agreed with Epstein had any effect on what the SDNY did. Epstein's lawyers argued that the SDFL NPA applied everywhere in the US. SDNY disagreed, and the courts agreed with the SDNY.
Again, this is true but as before, it is entirely irrelevant. The civil case is being held under the New York District court's jurisdiction. Not only does the settlement between Giuffre and Epstein specifically mention the SDFL NPA, but the terms of the settlement are pursuant to (in accordance with) that NPA
Andrew's lawyers are arguing that this settlement makes him immune to a lawsuit from Giuffre as an "other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant" and they cite the NPA as part of the reason. Since that NPA has no legal standing in New York State, and the provisions of the settlement are pursuant to (i.e. in accordance with) the NPA, then the whole settlement has no standing in New York State, therefore Andrew does not come under its protective umbrella.
.
.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
This is only a problem if the jurors were asked during selection whether they had been abused as children, and had said "no", only to later claim during jury deliberations that they had. That would mean they either lied during selection or lied during deliberations.
But if they're just drawing from personal life experience when deciding as jurors how to interpret the evidence from the trial, that's just how humans process information, and indeed, it's literally how juries are supposed to deliberate when they lack consensus. You make points, a juror who disagrees makes counterpoints, and eventually one of you changes your mind if the other's argument is compelling (or don't if it isn't).
In this case, the story is that one or more jurors were undecided as to whether some of the alleged victims' claims were realistic and believable; another juror argued they considered the victims' claims realistic based on their own experience of sexual abuse. The first juror(s) found that argument compelling, so they decided the claim was realistic after all.
In my opinion, this shouldn't result in a mistrial. The jurors involved didn't do anything wrong.
The highlighted.
What is the scope of that? Because, "I'll pay compensation for the alleged* criminal harm committed against you if you agree to not pursue compensation from other parties that hurt you in this case" seems pretty inequitable to me and the sort of thing that should be covered.
*Did the compensation include an acceptance of liability?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
That is definitely what the defense is implying, but they don't seem to say it clearly, which gives me pause.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,565
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Pro-tip, if you lie during jury selection, you gotta live with it and keep your mouth shut to the grave. Don't run to the news telling how you perjured yourself and played a pivotal role in convincing your fellow jurors to convict.
What an *******, decent chance he's going to make all of Maxwell's victim have to go through the ordeal of another trial.
What an *******, decent chance he's going to make all of Maxwell's victim have to go through the ordeal of another trial.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
It hasn't yet been demonstrated that he did lie, though. It's just assumed.
In essence this seems to be a contract between Giuffre and Epstein. In return for a payment Giuffre agrees not to do certain things. Now it maybe correct that a contract entered into under Florida law is not binding in New York, but that seems unlikely that such a contract would be made that allowed Giuffre to move to another jurisdiction and sue Epstein or the 'other defendants'. The intent was to draw a line under the thing.
I think the question will not be whether it was valid in NY (certainly Giuffre does not appear to have entered a claim against Epstein in NY which she presumably could have done if the agreement was not valid in NY), but whether Windsor is covered by the 'other defendants' clause.
This.
Is there anything that holds a jurist to not lie during deliberations?
I had a look through the English and Welsh legislation for either a jurist being held in contempt of court or have committed a criminal act and lying is not actually an offence (I think). In the UK this would never have surfaced as an issue as all jurists are anonymous and all jury deliberations are confidential, and it is a crime to reveal anything that happened in the deliberation phase.
Those phrases were put in to protect Epstein from this agreement being viewed as in breach of his previous agreements, they are not placing a limit on the agreement. They are irrelevant to whether Windsor is covered by her previous agreement.
Last edited:
And it depends when he lied, if he lied to a direct question during selection I can see that it could be issue, if he lied during deliberations I don't think it would matter.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
The judge seemed to have focussed - as he should - on the intent of the agreement. According to the BBC the judge has focused on the settlement clause that states third parties cannot use the agreement in another court without Epstein and Guiffre’s permission. Question: what if one of the parties to the agreement is deceased?
The other issue is that it seems to relate to the crime of sex trafficking and Andrew is the person being trafficked to, is the claim, not that he is the trafficker, as Epstein was charged with, so could Andrew claim protection under the same cover?
The judge is said to have been highly sceptical of Prince Andrew's barrister's legal arguments and gave him a hard time. Let's see if that translates into a dismissal of his application to strike the claim out. In England, a barrister being savaged by the judge is often a good sign rather than a bad sign as it means they are trying to firm up the legal argument as to why the other party loses.
The other reason for the long delay in announcing the decision is I suspect to do with Andrew's lawyers desperately trying to thrash out a settlement with Giuffre which also absolves him of liability. (Although of course, he would still be in the sights of the FBI, should they pursue the johns.)
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
In the USA it is perjury to lie during the jury selection process before the court, or in the voir dire questionnaire.
Problem here is whether this Scotty idiot ticked yes or no to the question whether he or a family member were ever sexually abused, harassed or attacked. If he had ticked yes, there is a high probability he would have been excluded as unimpartial, so I thing the Maxwell lawyers have a strong case. If they just failed to spot the 'yes' then it is just tough.
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
You're correct that it's not demonstrated yet but it's not quite just an assumption either. If he answered the questionnaire honestly why wasn't he questioned about that answer like others were?
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Soz. No, I don't think there can be anything to stop a jury member from lying during deliberations because of course they will each bring their own experiences and knowledge in to bear.