Ghislaine Maxwell juror

[AdamRyan]

Just read that Ghislaine Maxwell is applying for a retrial after a juror shared he was a victim of abuse
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59884806

Her defence are claiming he lied on selection as they asked about abuse and he would have been excluded from the jury if he disclosed it.

I know it's the US so a different system, but I started thinking if they exclude victims of abuse from abuse trials (or similar for rape) 1) are they biasing juries to being men as disproportionate amounts of women have been victims and 2) are they risking excluding people who have knowledge to share? And therefore enabling victim blaming/stereotypes to influence verdicts

In this case it sounds like that juror did address some rape myths, which I think is helpful. Juries are meant to reflect society so I don't see why it would be a problem for an abuse victim to be considering the evidence.

IMO this juror was a clever Maxwell plant. To delay the whole process and facilitate a predictable mis-trial. What kind of juror would blab about that after and talk about how they basically coerced dubious jurors to convict her?

@lightnesspixie

IMO this juror was a clever Maxwell plant. To delay the whole process and facilitate a predictable mis-trial. What kind of juror would blab about that after and talk about how they basically coerced dubious jurors to convict her?

That was my first thought as well. It seems so obvious what with him running to the press immediately.

What kind of juror would blab about that after and talk about how they basically coerced dubious jurors to convict her?
I think in the US they are allowed to talk after the trial, but in the UK they aren't. Not sure.
I also don't think him sharing his experience and discussing rape myths is "coercing". It sounds like he just talked about stress responses and memory.

More likely the defence team are desperately combing through everything to find grounds to appeal.

Personally I find it absolutely disgusting that none of the people implicated will face up to the consequences like adults. Instead they are busily trying every legal technicality to get out of it. Its horrific and I feel sorry for the brave women who came forward to be put through this uncertainty

I've always thought it strange that American jurors discuss criminal trials after the verdict. Putting that aside, however, I wonder if the other jurors thought it strange that Scotty David spoke about his own sexual abuse during their deliberations given they'd all presumably had to sign the same selection forms to say they hadn't been the victims of such abuse. If so, why on earth didn't they say anything. This is the jury who, after all, were not averse to sending notes in to the court asking for further information, and flip charts etc. Am I being too cynical in thinking this is all rather too convenient? Presumably the other jurors will be asked to comment on what David alleges he said?

Given the rate of abuse of women and girls , if not one of those is eligible then the jury will inevitably skewed towards males. I wonder if potential male juries are asked if they have raped or assaulted women.

The question, if I remember correctly, was 'have you or any of your friends or family been sexually assaulted or abused'.

Surely that leaves barely anyone eligible?
Are we saying no one who's been a crime victim can be on a jury for a similar crime? Or is it just sexual crimes that invalidate you?

@AdamRyan

What kind of juror would blab about that after and talk about how they basically coerced dubious jurors to convict her? I think in the US they are allowed to talk after the trial, but in the UK they aren't. Not sure. I also don't think him sharing his experience and discussing rape myths is "coercing". It sounds like he just talked about stress responses and memory.

More likely the defence team are desperately combing through everything to find grounds to appeal.

Personally I find it absolutely disgusting that none of the people implicated will face up to the consequences like adults. Instead they are busily trying every legal technicality to get out of it. Its horrific and I feel sorry for the brave women who came forward to be put through this uncertainty

In the news reports it outlines this juror saying some of the wider jury were erring on not believing the accusers - until he talked about his own experience as a victim - 'bringing them round' to his point of view. And therein lies the problem. This to me is suspiciously coercive. Certainly in the eyes of the law will be seen that way.

I'm surprised if/that the case didn't use any alternate jurors, in a high profile case like this. Surely the juror that knew or suddenly realised they had been a victim of abuse should have recused themselves immediately. They should have confirmed they weren't eligible to form part of the jury on this case if they knew beforehand.

For them to come forward now, only after the verdict & sentence have been passed seems very suspicious TBH.

until he talked about his own experience as a victim - 'bringing them round' to his point of view.
And therein lies the problem. This to me is suspiciously coercive. Certainly in the eyes of the law will be seen that way.
Surely the whole point of a jury is to discuss the crime in the light of the jurors life experience?
Otherwise the decision would be made by a judge or similar.
Debating /discussing points of view with the reasons why someone holds them isn't coercion. Its normal and how a group of humans comes to a consensus. What else would a jury be doing in deliberations?

@AdamRyan

until he talked about his own experience as a victim - 'bringing them round' to his point of view. And therein lies the problem. This to me is suspiciously coercive. Certainly in the eyes of the law will be seen that way. Surely the whole point of a jury is to discuss the crime in the light of the jurors life experience? Otherwise the decision would be made by a judge or similar. Debating /discussing points of view with the reasons why someone holds them isn't coercion. Its normal and how a group of humans comes to a consensus. What else would a jury be doing in deliberations?

Good point. Yes you are right I think. This will be an interesting thing to watch now to see what comes of it

I'm not usually a conspiracy theories, but as soon as I heard this, I thought it was a load of bollocks. Not that it hasn't happened, but it's all too convenient for Maxwell.

"Surely the whole point of a jury is to discuss the crime in the light of the jurors life experience?"

It's to decide the facts based on the evidence presented. Him attempting to educate others on the memory/psychological reaction of abuse victims is not his role when it doesn't appear any expert witness addressed this issue so it's not part of the facts that they are meant to be considering, but even more importantly when he is not a qualified expert on that subject.

It's no different than, for example, if a juror who had been treated for a disease then tried to use their "medical expertise" in relation to it to convince other jurors round to their way of thinking. It's not their place to give that evidence.

And that's what this guy was doing, introducing evidence (how a victim may react/how they might remember the event) to the deliberations when that evidence had not been given in court. Their deliberations are meant to be confined to considering what was presented in court.

I don't think answering yes means they will necessarily be dismissed. There are some limits around the extend to which each side can try and create a jury they think will favour them.

But lying during selection is a whole different kind of problem.

@lightnesspixie

IMO this juror was a clever Maxwell plant. To delay the whole process and facilitate a predictable mis-trial. What kind of juror would blab about that after and talk about how they basically coerced dubious jurors to convict her?

That doesn't make sense.

He says that the jury was swayed by him, so they were leaning toward a hot guilty verdict without his intervention. Surely that's what the defence wanted?

He wanted his 15 minutes of fame and the deals that come with it. Simple as that.

I think it’s really biased that people could be excluded on that basis tbh.

I think it’s really biased that people could be excluded on that basis tbh.
Yes. That's my main concern. Excluding people based on sexual assault would bias juries to being more men, or potentially people who haven't had life experience to question the "facts" put forward by the defence I.e. that an unreliable memory of the event means its a lie, as opposed to its a sign of trauma.