Re the call for a retrial for Ghislaine Maxwell

[FluffyBooBoo]

Apparently the defence are calling for a retrial because one of the jurors was a victim of child sex abuse - they had to answer questions, one of which was (I am paraphrasing) 'have you, your family or friends experienced sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual assault'

AIBU to think that there are very few women out there that haven't experienced some form of sexual harassment, and the chances of anyone (male or female) not knowing someone affected by one of these things is highly unlikely? And that the people on the jury therefore are likely to be men that don't talk about these things? Not convinced that's ideal tbh.

@TheReluctantPhoenix

There seems, these days, and a lot on this forum, to exist the opinion that a fair trial under the law is not that important for certain crimes. In fact, the opinion seems to be that a trial merely exists for the humiliation of the defendant and justice for the victims.

Show trials are very popular in repressive regimes, for just the above reasons, with the outcome never in doubt.

A retrial is not being called for because a juror shared their experiences, it is being called because the juror failed to declare a bias when specifically asked (they said that they ‘rushed through’ the form).

If the trial was flawed, there should be a retrial. In fact, the more heinous the crime, the more justice should be seen to be fair and even handed.

I agree completely with this, although God knows I don't want to see GM exonerated (I, too, as a rape victim have a vested interest in justice for the Epstein victims, recognise that this does not make me an impartial bystander, and therefore would also be biased and unsuitable to sit on that jury). But justice has to be clear, impartial, transparent, and as far as possible infalliable.

At the very least this loose-lipped juror has made the case vulnerable to appeal. If due process is not followed now in terms of answering the objections of her lawyers, she could end up getting off scot-free.
That's not to say similar issues don't go on in UK jury deliberations too. The difference here is that we never get to find out about it.

This juror really is an utter tool.

@appleturnovers

YANBU and I've seen this brought up as an issue in rape trials before.

The potential jurors are often asked if they have been the victim of rape/sexual assault, and excluded if they answer yes, but they are not asked if they have perpetrated or enabled rape and sexual assault, making it more likely that the jury will be comprised of people who identify themselves with the defendant.

If you asked the question it would be redundant - anyone who has been convicted of rape or serial assault is not allowed to sit on a jury and anyone who hasn't been convicted is hardly going to admit it on a jury selection form.

At the end of the day the juror lied on their selection form and then used their own experiences to influence the rest of the jury - that is not allowed. Juries are supposed to be impartial and judge purely on the facts of the case, they aren't supposed to bring their own personal situation into the jury room. Nobody can stop personal internal biases and experiences but if they are going to affect your ability to judge the case purely on its facts then that means you are not suitable to be on that particular jury.

Jurors are expected to judge a case purely on the evidence laid out and examined in court. This juror stated that he adduced evidence from personal experience that could not be challenged by the defence. No matter what the crime, a fair trial means that the defence should have the opportunity to challenge any evidence which may be used to reach a verdict. It's not about bias but the inability of the defence to address that bias.

@Hereward1332

Jurors are expected to judge a case purely on the evidence laid out and examined in court. This juror stated that he adduced evidence from personal experience that could not be challenged by the defence. No matter what the crime, a fair trial means that the defence should have the opportunity to challenge any evidence which may be used to reach a verdict. It's not about bias but the inability of the defence to address that bias.

The reason why we have jurors is to have a verdict of your peers. It would be impossible for most criminal trials to remove all personal experience etc.

If ee wanted purely independent and objective verdicts trials would only have a judge, surely?

The reason why we have jurors is to have a verdict of your peers. It would be impossible for most criminal trials to remove all personal experience etc.

Nobody expects jurors to remove all personal experience but they also cannot use that personal experience to influence other jurors when they are meant to be making an impartial judgement.

The jury is meant to judge the case on its evidence alone, if you have a juror saying "When I was in X scenario similar to Y scenario in the case, ABC happened" to the other jurors that experience is irrelevant to the case, but may influence other jurors as to an outcome they may not have come to if they only looked at the case evidence alone.

I think everyone does have their own personal opinions and biases.
What should not happen - and seems to have happened - is the juror using his or her biases to sway the other jurors.
They're there to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented, not because Juror X was once the victim of a similar crime to the one being tried.

@pigeonlittle

Not really. Jurors are expected to make a judgement based on the evidence presented in court, not on their prejudices. In this case, a juror has claimed he tried to influence other jurors based on his own bias. Hypothetically, let's say a juror in an assault trial claimed that they had been assaulted by someone who looked like the defendant so thought he was guilty; that would clearly not be fair as the defendant has no opportunity to answer.

Jurors should make judgements purely on the evidence produced in court, not on their own pre-judgements. They may have bias, but should not seek to influence other jurors on this basis.

There's a difference between the prejudice of "A person of that look once hit me"

And "I was once hit"

Call me a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, but how timely that a person has spoken out knowing it could cause a re-trial. Wonder if any money's post trial has crossed hands ....

@PigeonLittle

There's a difference between the prejudice of "A person of that look once hit me"

And "I was once hit"

But whether you have the former or the latter prejudice you should not be using it to make a decision in someone else's trial, and you definitely shouldn't be telling the other jurors about your experience

But you are saying that the point of a jury is that all jurors come with experience, and should judge accordingly. You cannot distinguish between prejudice you may agree with and that you don't, as per your differentiation. In this specific case, it seems the juror's thought process has been to add to witness testimony on the assumption that the defendant is guilty of a crime similar to that he suffered, and attempt to influence other jurors on that basis.

@appleturnovers

YANBU and I've seen this brought up as an issue in rape trials before.

The potential jurors are often asked if they have been the victim of rape/sexual assault, and excluded if they answer yes, but they are not asked if they have perpetrated or enabled rape and sexual assault, making it more likely that the jury will be comprised of people who identify themselves with the defendant.

I didn't know that and I'm horrified. It does explain how too many sex offenders go free or are given unjustly lenient sentences though. OP I suspect most women have experienced some sort of sexual harrassment or even assault, even if it's just having their bums grabbed by some drunken letch. A young fella who is not rebuked and corrected for such behaviour, which is a sort of misogyny and sexual deviance, only gets worse as he get older. There are men who think they have the right to women's bodies regardless of what WE want all over the planet, they're like a disease!

Proesecutors are obviously worried as they are suggesting appointing a lawyer for the juror. The questionnaire to become a juror ia a huge document and asnwering yes to that specific question doesn't mean you won't be a juror, just more questions will be asked to check suitability.

This juror has screwed up big time and could be the sole reason the conviction is overturned

I agree that a retrial is fair in this instance.

The juror didn’t only have his own opinions and experiences, he admits that he used his experiences as a way to sway other jurors and that it did change the direction that the jury deliberations were going in.

All very suspicious though that he would openly admit to this!

As I said in the other thread: a very clever Maxwell plant was that juror ...

@Alexandra2001

If i were GM i would be seeking a tell all deal and get a reduced sentence, its inconceivable she acted alone nor that JE was the only abuser.

I wonder if she regrets not giving evidence herself.

Even with a reduced sentence she’d be in prison until she was over 80. I reckon if she’d given evidence she’d have condemned herself. Her mental state must be appalling after spending so long in solitary.

That bloody juror! Both for the initial action of 'presuading' the others using his own experience rather than the facts of the case and then for blabbing about it at the first opportunity.

What an absolute tool.

@lightnesspixie

As I said in the other thread: a very clever Maxwell plant was that juror ...

Very possibly....

@lightnesspixie

As I said in the other thread: a very clever Maxwell plant was that juror ...

Except he wasn't the only one, there aretwo under investigation, but this one was just dumb enough to waive his anonymity so he could sell his story after the trial ended.

Hmmm. Leetle financial incentive?

@Tanith

I think everyone does have their own personal opinions and biases. What should not happen - and seems to have happened - is the juror using his or her biases to sway the other jurors. They're there to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented, not because Juror X was once the victim of a similar crime to the one being tried.

That's a bit too simplistic.

The issue was memory. The defendant used a notorious memory expert who specialises in getting sex offenders off by saying memory is rarely accurate.

When this point came up in deliberations, the juror shared his own experience of memory recall and how it both matched the expert's yet was also accurate as a means of making better sense of the defence evidence. Eva use if you drill down on the research, it is accurate of course, but it is repeatedly cherry picked by defence teams to bamboozle juries.. (It's complex)

Conspiracy theories are ridiculous. Tin hats all round.

I don’t think conspiracy theories are ridiculous but that it’s ridiculous to believe everything you are fed by the media.
Jeffery Epstein’s suicide for a start.

Even if the juror was bribed, whodunnit? Any of Epstein's customers could be in the frame for that. She's less likely to talk if she's free.

I think the more likely scenario is that the DM somehow got a tip regarding the jury deliberations (ie two mentioning sexual abuse). They knew it would be an absolute powder keg and deliberately approached the juror(s) offering a huge amount of money to waiver anonymity. Wouldn't be surprised if they assured him that nothing could change the verdict and that the juror wasn't aware about the seriousness of the situation. His quote regarding the questionnaire sounded quite naive and almost forgetful, he clearly didn't realise what a huge deal it would be. The DM are making a huge fanfare out of their "exclusive" story.

Either the juror was a really clever plant or a stupid, greedy guy who was set up by the press and thrown to the wolves.