Judge Questions Juror In Ghislaine Maxwell Case

I don't want to call her a monster. A predator is the right word. This is Scottie. David being interviewed by the daily mail.

He is one of 12 jurors who convicted gallant Maxwell of sex trafficking charges. Now, those verdicts are being scrutinized after David revealed in media interviews that he had been a victim of sex abuse. He told the independent, I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls, some of it can be replayed like a video that is like the.

Worst case scenario, we don't want that to be brought into the jury pool, why? Because of that case is too close, an emotion, too close in nature to the actual case, attorneys and judges tried to screen out jurors whose personal experiences might affect their impartiality. But rooting those jurors out can be a challenge. You don't want people feeling empathy and compassion for one of the other jurors that's gone through sexual assault that's. Not the way the jury is supposed to be deliberating. But. Alleged juror, misconduct does not automatically mean.

A new trial says, New York criminal appeals' lawyer. Mark baker, your misconduct has probably one of the highest bars for a defendant to overcome in order to achieve the result of a new trial federal law, prohibits jurors from having to testify about deliberations, except in rare cases, such as when a juror has expressed racial animus, when you step into the jury room and deliberate you're, not giving up your background as a human being your personal. Experiences are always going to come into play. The question is whether those questions those personal experiences caused you to be biased from the get-go. And that bias was purposely withheld. If that's not the case it's going to be more difficult for a defendant to demonstrate that a new trial is required getting a new trial might be an uphill battle, but that hasn't stopped high profile, defendants like derrick, shoving and Harvey weinstein's. Attorneys are seeking a new trial alleging in.

Part the judge abused, his discretion when he did not remove a juror who wrote a book about older predatory men, tuning out the media tune out everything to just focus on the case Brandon Mitchell, served on the jury that found Minneapolis police officer, derrick Chauvin, guilty of second-degree, unintentional murder in a bid for a new trial. Shoving's attorney accused the juror of being misleading and untruthful when he answered no to the question about, whether he intended any marches protesting. Police brutality, my answer was no because I had it. This particular march was for more. So for voting voter registration in court documents, the defense argued, Mitchell was biased and pointed to this picture of him wearing a t-shirt that said, get your knee off our necks. Judge Cahill denied, the motion for a new trial and Chauvin's defense team is appealing to a higher court.

People lie mark Richards, defended, Kyle, Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of all criminal charges for killing two protesters. And. Injuring a third, I think in a high profile case, it becomes more of a concern somebody wanting to get in it in the panel and potentially marshal a group of people to their side and sway the verdict while jury selection plays a vital role in every trial. Richard says, the outcome of the case ultimately lies with the client. Jurors are so much more aware of what's going on in that courtroom than you think they are one of those 12 or 14.

In this case, 20 people is staring at you all the time, and they pay. Attention and the smallest thing can make a big difference that was court TV, legal, correspondent, Julia, Jena, reporting for us there. So today, in New York, the big focus is on a juror in the Elaine Maxwell case who says he did not disclose his child sexual abuse history during the jury selection is, and I'm quoting directly here.

This is what he told the judge today. The judge questioned him about it in a public hearing said, it was quoted, one of the biggest mistakes of his life. Scotty. David, aka. Juror number 50 was questioned by that federal judge a judge Allison, Nathan is her name about why he failed to disclose that he was sexually abused and about his public claims that he influenced fellow jurors by revealing that.

He was a child sex assault victim. Sod avid's revelation could be grounds could be for Elaine Maxwell to get a brand-new trial that's because a copy of the juror's questionnaire showed that David checked. No next to a question that asked if he or a friend or a family member.

Had ever been the victim of a sexual harassment sexual abuse or a sexual assault. This is information that he should have revealed to the court on that questionnaire before the trial began. But as we know he did not Maxwell as you know, was found guilty of sex trafficking as well as other charges. And she is scheduled to be sentenced in June here to discuss.

I have with me Atlanta. Magistrate court, judge criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, Kimberly band. And in San Antonio, Texas, forensic. Psychologist john Delaware, oh boy, oh boy. Okay. So judge Kimberly, legally, how likely do you think it is that this would be grounds for the court to grant village Maxwell, a brand-new trial. I feel like they have really strong compelling reasons to grant a new trial, because he didn't disclose it at all.

He didn't say, I know someone and the, and then he admitted that he swayed the juror because of his experience. And so they had a right to know that they could decide whether he should have been an. Appropriate person to be making those decisions. So I definitely think this is going to be a compelling case. If there is one to get a new trial, right?

Right? Um, you know this what a shame what a shame this is and uh, john Delaware, tell me, what do you think might have been going on in his mind? Because he said, it was one of the biggest mistakes of his life. He told the court today that he was going through that form very quickly, too quickly, almost it seems like not paying attention.

But there were. Not one, but two questions about this and into both of them, he's answering no on the forum. And then when it comes time to deliberate as judge Kimberly pointed out, they were talking in the jury room, apparently about how some of these witnesses, memories, weren't, exactly perfect. And he was saying, well, just because the memory of that sexual abuse, isn't exactly perfect, doesn't mean, the abuse didn't occur.

And he said, I'm speaking from experience and revealed to the fellow jurors that he had been a child. Sex assault victim. What do you think might have been going on in his mind? Do you think this could be a case of a stealth juror somebody trying to get on that jury? Or do you believe what he says that he just overlooked this question twice?

Because he was going too quickly through the forum. I mean, I think both things can be true. I do think that he was probably reading pretty quickly, although victim sexual harassment. Those kinds of words tend to stick out. And if there are multiple questions with.Then then he truly was not paying attention at all. If you know is he's accurate in saying that he was just going through and marking no. But the other thing that we have to understand is that how someone views themselves might determine how they perceive the questions being asked that, maybe he didn't perceive himself as being quoted, unquote, a victim, because of that he didn't, he didn't, he answered, no because in his mind he's, not quote-unquote a victim.

But that on top of all of that is we have to. Understand that even though the jury gets charged with the laws that they have to make their deliberations on once the jury room door, closes group dynamics are at play social psychology. Sociology, psychology, all of those dynamics are at play. The law essentially gets left outside that door.

And now everything is just going to be about the interactions that these people have it's certainly possible that he viewed himself some kind of avenging angel type of juror who wanted to make Elaine Maxwell, pay. Oh, you know what you just said there? Dr, John reminded me of what we were seeing last week when we were following, Scott Peterson's case. And that juror who was saying, kind of what you just said about how she didn't perceive herself as somebody who would be a domestic violence victim. Even though there was a restraining order that was in effect.

And it was her perception that sort of, I guess affected the way in which he answered those questions here. This guy's saying that he went through it. Too quickly at the first question, specifying it.

He says have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of a sex assault, sex abuse, sexual harassment, um. And you know, and then the next one talks about have you or family member ever been a victim of a crime. So twice, he had an opportunity to answer there. And judge Kimberly is somebody who practices criminal defense. If he had answered, yes, um to either of those, especially the first one you'd want to strike him wouldn't you that. Yes, he would.

Have been the first person I would have used one of my strikes on, because I know that he's going to view. This whole case in his through his lenses, what you actually expect jurors to do to take their life experiences, listen to the evidence and the facts and to make decisions based on it. But you don't want anybody who can't be impartial and see clearly because of what they've been through. And I think it's unfair to ask somebody to take such a heaven burden off. I mean, it's something that you have. To work through some people work through it for a lifetime right isn't that the truth judge Kimberly, band.

Dr, john deleted. Thank you. Both we're gonna head into our next hour.

Now watching two trials closely the one in Georgia. And of course, the one in Ohio, this is court TV. Live your front row seat to just.

Leave a Reply