An Astonishing Post-Verdict Twist
Dispatches from the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial
While I was reporting my podcast and docuseries “Chasing Ghislaine,” which focused on Maxwell’s role as a gatekeeper to the men in Epstein’s orbit, people close to Maxwell’s defense team seemed relatively unworried about what they thought would be in the two productions.
“What matters most to Ghislaine’s defense is that she gets an untainted, fair jury.” So spoke someone close to Maxwell’s defense as I was reporting This person talked to me on the condition of anonymity.
That the jury was their number one priority seemed quite clear to me.
Now, here we are, post-verdict, at an astonishing moment when not one but two jurors have said in interviews with the media that they were victims of sexual abuse and, further, that they talked about those experiences in the jury room.
And here’s the kicker: the first juror (who asked to be identified only by his first and middle names “Scotty David”) told Reuters that he “flew through” the preliminary juror questionnaire and does not recall being asked about whether or not he or a family member had suffered sexual abuse. David reportedly told Reuters that, if there had been such questions, he would have answered honestly. The New York Times article containing the interview with the second juror—this one completely anonymous—made no comment at all regarding the questionnaire.
There were at least two questions on the questionnaire, including the following:
“Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?”
“Witnesses in this case may testify claiming sexual abuse or sexual assault. Would you have any difficulty assessing the credibility of a witness claiming sexual assault or abuse just like you would any other witness?”
At this point, given the redactions in the filings to the court today by the Maxwell defense attorneys in their request for a new trial, we don’t know if the boxes were checked correctly or not in either case. But it’s highly unlikely that Maxwell’s defense would have knowingly permitted a victim of sexual abuse to sit on the jury. They would have struck that person off.
Given the unusual lengths (a preliminary questionnaire sent to over 600 potential jurors) and time (nearly two weeks until the pool of 231 prospectives was winnowed via voir dire to the 12 jurors and six alternates for the trial) that were undertaken to select this jury, the idea that two of them—and who knows more—somehow got through the net has shaken even the most experienced prosecutors who have been following this case.
What follows is speculation, but that’s all anyone’s got until Judge Nathan assembles the legal teams back in court. (According to Nathan’s ruling today, the defense motion is due January 19, with the government response to follow on February 2 and the defense reply then due by February 9.)
A former AUSA for the Southern District of New York provided one conjecture, noting the possibility that the jurors simply lied—perhaps "because they just wanted to put Maxwell away.” He told me today, “The hatred for her out there is just that bad.”
Meanwhile, the obvious question is: If this goes to a re-trial, who does it benefit? The government or the defense?
Another former AUSA—David S. Weinstein—says that, in Miami, he’s seen criminals walk because of corrupt juries.
“I live in a state where jurors were bribed in one of the biggest drug trafficking cases in the entire district and tainted the verdict and caused defendants to walk who were guilty. So, [it] doesn't surprise me,” he said.
But that anonymous former AUSA for the SDNY says that, in Maxwell’s case, it ought to help the prosecutors.
“If they’re smart, they’ll try the perjury case first,” he said. “Because, in that case, Maxwell says she wasn’t aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone else. That’s easy to attack her on.”
My source says that the second thing he thinks the government will do, if there’s a new trial, is to fix the weaknesses in some of their witnesses’ testimony. (I wrote previously about the inconsistencies between what witnesses told the FBI a few years ago when interviewed about Epstein and what they said after Epstein’s death.)
Regardless, given the extraordinary twist and turns of this story—beginning with the evasion of justice by Epstein, then his death in strange circumstances, and the myriad of questions hovering over this trial to do with the money, the relationship, and much more—who would have thought that we’d be facing this?
I would expect nothing less from 2022.
