B (13:14)
David's statement spurred controversy as potential jurors were queried about past abuse during jury selection. Have you or a friend ever been the victim of a sexual of sexual harassment, sexual abuse or sexual assault was one such prompt on the questionnaire. Who can really answer no to that, though, honestly? Does anyone know somebody who hasn't been sexually harassed, sexually abused or sexually assaulted at this point in time? And that's really just a telling narrative on society in general, isn't it? After David's comments emerged, prosecutors asked Nathan to conduct an inquiry into his statements, a request that was quickly echoed by Maxwell's lawyers. Maxwell's legal team has repeatedly asked for a new trial over David's comments. And that's where we're at, right? We're trying to figure out what the next move is here. Are we going right to sentencing or is it going to be a mistrial? And we're going back to the starting line to start this thing all over again. And I really, really hope that that is not the case. In paperwork filed on Tuesday, prosecutors argued against a new trial, pointing to David's insistence that he did not omit anything intentionally. Even if David had disclosed his past abuse, that would not have outright disqualified him from serving on the jury, they said. And that is the truth, right? When you come out and say, hey, look, I was abused, you answer honestly. That doesn't automatically mean you're not going to be on the jury. Chances are the defense is going to say, ah, nah, let's get rid of this guy. Bring somebody who's a little more neutral in chances are that's going to happen. But we don't know. Nobody knows the future. Nobody knows what would have happened. After the thoughtful and thorough hearing held by this court, it is crystal clear that that the defendant received a fair trial, prosecutors wrote. Juror 50 sworn testimony at the hearing made evident that he did not deliberately lie in completing that questionnaire, but that he instead made an honest mistake. And if it's determined that it was an honest mistake by Judge Nathan, then this is, it's a wrap, folks. Put a bow on it. Let's move on to sentencing. And that's the point we're at, right? Everyone's made their arguments. All the facts as we know them have been put forth. Now Judge Nathan is going to make a determination one way or the other. The defendant cannot demonstrate that Juror 50 was biased at the hearing. Juror 50 repeatedly denied that he harbored any bias or feelings one way or another with respect to the defendants or the government. Prosecutors also wrote to the contrary. Juror 50 consistently testified that he was fair and impartial in this case. And, and that he rendered a verdict consistent with the evidence and the court's instructions of law. Well, that's a pretty powerful statement by the prosecution and maybe a little bit overblown, right? But, hey, look, let's be. Let's be clear. The prosecution has a job to do. They don't want this to be a mistrial more than we do. Even go back and start all over. It looks really bad for them. So they're going to do everything they can to make sure that this conviction, this conviction sticks as well as they should, by the way. Because let's be honest, does anyone really think Ghislaine Maxwell didn't deserve to be convicted here? I mean, come on, all of that evidence that we heard, and then at the very end, for Annie to come out and drop the hammer with her testimony, it was a wrap. At least in my opinion, anyway. It is unclear when Judge Nathan will rule on the attorney's latest, latest arguments. Longtime attorneys have previously told the Guardian that a retrial is unlikely. Again, who knows in the world of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell what's likely and unlikely at this point? But it certainly seems like Judge Nathan is leaning towards this verdict being upheld. And if that's the case, we'll move on to sentencing. And Maxwell's team, while they'll be focusing on sentencing, they'll be moving on to trying to get this appealed. So we'll have to see what happens here and we'll see which way the ball bounces. But, you know, it's my opinion that we're going to see the sentencing phase very soon. That's what my gut is telling me right now. Especially after Scotty David had his little talk with Nathan. She didn't seem to be swayed too much as far as what the defense was trying to go for. So we'll have to see. But it doesn't look too promising for Ghislaine Maxwell and her legal team. Alright, folks, that is going to do it for this morning's update. Last night, I spent some time with Maria Farmer and we had a fantastic conversation for about an hour. Talked about Epstein, obviously, Maxwell, obviously. But the, the main portion of the conversation revolved around Les Wexner. So if you haven't checked that episode out yet, go back to last night, the evening update, and definitely download that one. As for me, well, I'll be back later on like usual. Some more episodes are certainly on their way. If you'd like to contact me, you can do that. Obbycapucciotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U c c I@protonmail.com you can also find me on Twitter obbycapucci. The links that go with this episode can be found in the description box. What's up, everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein chronicles. Juror number 50, Scotty David, had his time in front of Judge Nathan today and explained what went down during the questionnaire process. Now, according to Scotty David, this was all just a mistake. He rushed through this and he had no ill intentions or he had no intentions of trying to put himself on the jury or inserting himself into the case. It was all just an accident, and it was due to him rushing. So the question's going to become, does Judge Nathan believe him? Doesn't matter what we believe, right? Not one bit. It's all going to come down to what Judge Nathan believes. And then after, you know that if, say, there is no mistrial declared, you know that Maxwell and her team are going to appeal this anyway. You know, they're going to appeal it and try and fight it out in an appeals court, but unfortunately for them, they might find Judge Nathan waiting for them on that appeals court as well. So they're really not in a great position here if they don't get this flipped and turned into a mistrial, which, again, I'm certainly not a lawyer. Right. And it, from my perspective, it looks like there's a lot there to sink your teeth into. But when you listen to all of the legalese and the lawyers and prosecutors, it's so hard to get one of these convictions overturned and to get a new trial based on something like this that it's not really a commonplace event, if you will. So while it looks really bad, right, if this guy lied to get on a jury, how much worse can it possibly be than that? But according to the law, you know, there's wiggle room, I guess, and it's gonna come down to Judge Nathan and what she determines went down. What went down here? So with that said, why don't we jump into this article from the Daily Beast, and the author is Kate Bricklett. Headline, one of the biggest mistakes. Ghislaine Maxwell, juror admits to Judge, he messed up. Now look, if this is an honest mistake and he really made an honest mistake, I don't know how that really happens when you have this kind of questionnaire and you shouldn't be flying through it, but if it was an honest mistake, then I don't know how that is any better, honestly, for the person on trial. Let's just say it wasn't Ghislaine Maxwell. Let's just say it's, you know, insert run of the mill crime here and this is something that happens in that case. Well, looking at it as a non biased observer, you'd say to yourself, at least I would. What in the hell's going on here? How in the hell did this happen? Right? So when you're looking at it from this perspective and him saying that he messed up, I guess, you know, you can give him the benefit of the doubt or whatever you want to do, but for me, it just does not look good. The optics don't look good. The fact that he says he rushed through the questionnaire, that doesn't look good. So I'm torn, right? And I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision one way or the other, to be honest with you. A juror in Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial was questioned under oath on Tuesday about why he didn't reveal his history of childhood sexual abuse on a jury questionnaire and about whether it impacted his ability to be impartial in the case. Now, look, we've heard from him and he's talked about, you know, what he said after the trial, obviously, and we heard, heard the interview. So none of this is, is really new. He says that he was impartial, that, you know, his circumstances when he was younger didn't affect his decision making. Right. It wasn't like he had an ax to grind. That's what he's saying. But if you're on the defense, you're saying to yourself, well, that's all fine and well, you can say that, but how far does that go? What is that worth? Manhattan Federal Judge Allison Nathan also asked Juror 50 about his handful of media interviews shortly after the British socialite, convicted sex offender, convicted human trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, guilty verdict. I figured a little article about a juror giving their experience wouldn't be record breaking or really in the news at all, said the juror who went by his first and middle name, Scotty David. In the press. I. Come on, it's playing a little bit ridiculous there. You didn't think that going to give an interview in a case like this would be explosive. Of course it would be. Stop it. Now Maxwell is fighting for a retrial in wake of Scotty's January media tour, arguing he never would have made it to the panel had he truthfully answered the 50 question juror form used to weed out potential bias. The juror was contrite on the stand, saying he never intended to mislead anyone and he didn't lie to get on the jury for the notorious sex trafficking case. Again, that's his word, right? And you could either believe him or not. And it doesn't matter one way or the other, because all that's really going to matter at this point is what Judge Nathan thinks. So did he convince her? Didn't he convince her? We're gonna have to wait and find out. But. But I think the point is we shouldn't even be in a situation like this, right? Just be honest on the questionnaire. This was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made in my life. The juror testified. Yeah, I would guess so. All of this negative press and, you know, it definitely can't be fun. Nobody wants to deal with that. And look, let's be. Let's be very clear. Someone who was abused when they were younger, it can't be an easy road to travel, right? But you can't be lying to get on Jerry's man. And if that's the case here and it throws this all into disarray, then it's really a huge setback for these survivors. And we have to keep that in perspective. And remember, that's the top priority, right? Them getting justice. And if this goes into a mistrial, that the rug of justice has once again been pulled out from underneath them. So instead of talking about this nonsense, like I said earlier, we should be talking about sentencing right now and maybe indicting some of the other co conspirators. If I lied deliberately, I wouldn't have told a soul. He later added, and apologized for wasting people's time and money. Well, that's a good point, right? If you're lying, usually you want to keep it secret. But is that strong enough to sway the judge? Scotty claimed that he didn't realize he made an error on the jury form until a Daily Mail reporter peppered him with questions about it in a video interview. Did I just mess up something entirely? The juror recalled thinking. He said he was shocked and didn't know he'd missed a question asking if he was a Victim of sexual abuse again. Look, we can't sit here and say that he's lying. We don't have definitive proof. Nobody was sitting there and. And with him while he was filling out his questionnaire. Right. Only he knows if he did it deliberately or not. But it doesn't look good. The optics don't look good is all I'm saying. And from my perspective after all of these years following this case, this is the kind of thing, the sort of shit these people love to sink their teeth into. Loopholes and technicalities. How many times do I have to say it? Nathan ordered the prosecution and defense to file briefings on the jurors testimony as it relates to Maxwell's request for a new trial by March 15th. So March 15th is a day that there should be some briefings filed for us to take a look at. Give us a little more meat on the bone, a little more context. Which is perfect because that's two days after my birthday, so I'll be home from my little trip. Last week, Scottie's council indicated he would invoke his fifth amendment right against self incrimination at the hearing. And prosecutors indicated they were making an application to grant him immunity for his testimony by Tuesday. The Department of Justice granted that request. So all that means is they're compelling his testimony by giving him immunity from the crime of whatever it might be, perjury or lying or whatever the hell the feds want to cook up. So nothing more, nothing less. There. That's exactly what that is. The juror made headlines soon after Maxwell was found guilty. In late December, Maxwell was convicted of aiding her ex boyfriend, co conspirator, fellow child abuser Jeffrey Epstein's underage sex ring. In the 1990s and early 2000s, four survivors took the stand at the high profile criminal trial and claimed Maxwell groomed them for the multimillionaire pedophile predator and sometimes participated in the sexual abuse herself. Jurors deliberated for six days before finding Maxwell guilty on five of six charges related to child sex trafficking. Well, we all know. Look, anyone who followed that understands, even without Scotty David pressuring these other jurors like he said he did, I don't understand how anyone could come to the conclusion that Maxwell was innocent. And with the evidence that we saw. Now if I'm missing something, please point it out. But even with them trying to punch holes in the testimony of the survivors about their memory and bringing out the memory expert, we. We saw how that all fizzled out. So again, I don't think Scotty David is enough to sway it one way or the other. His telling of what occurred in his own life anyway. Days after the verdict, Lawyers for the 60 year old British socialite convicted sexual trafficker, a human trafficker you mean, argued the verdict was in jeopardy because of Scotty's statements in the press. The Independent, the first to publish a feature on Scotty, revealed the 35 year old Manhattanite was himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. A fact unknown to the court because he didn't disclose it on his jury questionnaire. Now again, look, that's bad optics, right? Doesn't look good for Scotty David, doesn't look good for the prosecution. And when you have great lawyers like Maxwell's, they're going to sink their teeth in and they're going to try and do whatever they can to manipulate the situation and turn it into a W for them and their million dollar paying client. This verdict is for all the victims, Scotty told the UK based outlet. For those who testified, for those who came forward and for those who haven't come forward, I'm glad that Maxwell has been held accountable. Now that is pretty powerful stuff from Scotty David to say. Right? And under normal circumstances, if the juror didn't, you know, BS his way to get onto the jury, that would be some pretty powerful testimony. But when you look at it from Maxwell's point of view, you could easily spin that into him saying that he has an axe to grind, that, you know, this is for all of the survivors, including me, who have, you know, been abused. So again, it's not a good look. And the optics are just really, really bad for Scotty David, unfortunately. The publication added that Scotty's fellow jurors went dead silent when he shared he was a victim of sexual abuse and argued that survivors can misremember small details about a traumatic event, but not the whole of a traumatic memory. 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, Scotty told the Independent. But I can't remember all the details. There are some things that run together and look, let's not be, let's not mess around here, right? Scotty getting abused himself is terrible, a horrible, horrible thing. But that doesn't give him the right, if he lied here, to lie and try and get on this jury, to grind his own axe at the expense of these survivors. Scotty also granted interviews to the Daily Mail and Reuters, saying he did not recall whether the pretrial Questionnaire asked prospective panelists whether they had been victims of sexual assault and that he flew through the list of queries. He said that when fellow jurors questioned the accuracy of the accuser's memories, he swayed some of them by talking about his own experience with sexual abuse. Now, again, I've talked about this a lot, Obviously, I really don't think that he. What is he, Yoda? He's over there and he's swaying everybody with his power, his Jedi mind trick. So again, it might have been something that they took into account, but enough to sway them. I don't know about all of that. In court on Tuesday, Nathan warned the juror, you need to answer my questions today, and you need to answer truthfully. If you don't answer truthfully, you could be prosecuted for perjury. She also instructed Scotty not to share anything about what jurors discussed in the deliberation room. Yeah, that's not something that should be talked about in open court, for sure. And even though you have immunity, that immunity is only protecting you from your previous crimes, right? So if you lie in front of the judge and perjure yourself again, then it starts all over. And that's why when you see people rat on someone like, say, El Chapo, they have to tell everything they've ever done, whether it be murder somebody or anything, right? Then when they're. When they're signing that proffer or the deal doesn't protect them. As he swore to tell the truth, the juror reviewed question 48 on the jury questionnaire, which asked if he had been the victim of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault. Asked if his answer was accurate, he answered, no, it is not. The response should have been, yes, he said, so, look, he could say that he was flying through the questionnaire, and Maxwell will say obviously that he lied. And again, it is up to the judge to decide. The juror said that he was abused when he was 9 and 10 years old, but didn t disclose what happened until high school. He testified that his mother reported the alleged crime to police, but no one was charged. How often do we see that? Right. People report this kind of thing to the police or to the authorities, and nothing ever comes of it. It's pretty sad. And once again, it goes back to the resource problem. We need to have better resources and better training for the police officers and agents that are working on cases such as this. Scotty also addressed question 25, which asked whether he had ever been the victim of a crime. He answered, no. Looking back at it now, it's an incorrect answer, the juror said. He said that at the time, he imagined the question referred to being robbed or mugged. I wasn't thinking of my sexual abuse. He added, well, again, I'm not in Scotty David's head, right. I'm not going to say one way or the other, oh, he was thinking this or he was thinking that. I have no idea. But you would think that if you were a victim of such a heinous crime, that would be one of the first things that you thought about when someone asked you if you were a victim of a crime, right? The juror later said, I don't really think about my abuse much anymore because it doesn't define me. The juror then repeated something he told news reporters weeks ago. I flew through the questionnaire. Indeed, Scotty said he had never thought he'd be selected for the 12 member jury out of nearly 700 prospective panelists. Well, that's no excuse. If you are, you know, thinking you're going to be selected or not, you should go into it thinking that this might be a responsibility that you have to tackle. When he filled out the questionnaire, he said he was seated at a table where people dropped off their forms. He said the environment was noisy and super distracting, and he skimmed the document to get it over with. Having waited three hours for an instructional video, a breakup with an ex was also occupying his mind and focus. He said, all right, I guess so. But again, some papers rustling and you had a breakup, so you flying through the questionnaire, not really reassuring if you're talking about, you know, giving some concrete information on why you're a solid person. I did not hope to serve on this jury, he testified, but if you're going to serve jury duty, it might as well be something that's interesting. But I did not set out to get on this jury. All right, he says he didn't set out to get on this jury, and let's take him at his word, right? Let's see what. Let's see what the judge has to say. The juror clarified later on in the questioning. This is something interesting. It's not like a fraud case that might be boring. I just felt like this might be something interesting that keeps my attention. Oh, boy. He's not really doing himself any favors here, folks. I'm trying to be generous with my commentary, but it's very difficult because he's coming off as not very good here. He said he felt pressure to complete the jury questionnaire quickly and compared it and compared it to taking A test in school. He said he didn't want to be the last one to finish. Um, what? Taking a test in school. When Nathan asked whether the juror approached filling out the form with diligence, he answered no. Boy, oh boy. Nathan also leveled follow up questions about after Scotty said he didn't tell friends and family about his past abuse, asking why he told the international news media. That's a good question, right? A very honest question to ask and a valid question. I only used it in order to talk to a reporter about jury deliberations. Why? I believe a certain way based on all of the evidence that was provided during the trial, he said. He also said that he was inspired by the victims who testified at the trial and were brave enough to give their story. I felt like if they can do it, then so can I. Look, you can look at that two ways. And as it being an inspirational moment for Scotty David or him trying to insert himself once again making the story about him. Now it's up to you to decide which way you want to look at it, right? But for me, it's just, again, the optics are so bad for this dude. On January 5th, the prosecution and defense each filed letters with the court about Scotty's talks with reporters, which raised questions as to whether he was impartial at trial, whether the court instructed jurors that they were free to discuss their jury service with anyone of their choosing. Some of the statements as related in the media merit attention by the court, wrote the government, which suggested the judge investigate. So right away when he made these statements, it was on. Right? We were discussing it right away. All of the talk was about Scotty David and his alleged non truthfulness, untruthfulness, I guess, with the questionnaire. And here we are. On January 19, Maxwell's team filed a motion for a new trial which argued that Scotty's false answers on the questionnaire resulted in a jury that was not fair and impartial and deprived Ms. Maxwell of her constitutional right by jury. Had he truthfully filled out the form, they argued, he would have been excluded from the panel. Again, more than likely, that is the case. Right? But we can't look into the future or the past here and see what would have happened or what could have happened. All that we know is what did happen. But Juror 50 may not have been alone in allegedly glossing over certain questions. The New York Times interviewed a second juror who said that they'd experienced child sexual abuse, but didn't say so on the questionnaire. This Juror who requested anonymity said that they too had discussed the experience during deliberations and that the revelation had appeared to help shape the jury's discussions, the Times reported. Again, not good optics. And I'm sure Judge Nathan is going to take all of this stuff into account. To date, this juror has not publicly revealed their identity, and Ms. Maxwell does not know who it is, her attorneys wrote in their motion. For its part, this court expressed confidence that the question process would smoke out a juror who was dishonest. They added, Ms. Maxwell relied on the court's process and the court and the parties relied on the presumption to which everyone is entitled that potential jurors would carefully, honest, would carefully and honestly engage in the questioning process. Unfortunately, we now know that juror number 50 and at least one other juror did not honor their obligations to give only truthful answers. All right, well, we don't know that for sure. What we know is that there is some questions surrounding it. Right? And especially with Scotty David, it doesn't look good for him getting immunity, pleading the Fifth. I'm flying through it. I had a breakup. None of that stuff looks good. While Nathan denied Maxwell's initial request for a retrial and to question the other jurors, she did agree to question Scotty at a special hearing. To be clear, the potential impropriety is not that someone with a history of sexual abuse may have served on the jury, Nathan wrote in her ruling. Rather, it is the potential failure to respond truthfully to questions during the jury selection process that asked for that material information so that any potential bias could be explored. So basically, like we've talked about, what that says is, look, you can't lie to get on the jury, but if you've been sexually abused or assaulted or whatever, that doesn't automatically preclude you from serving. Now it's up to, you know, Nathan and the courts to figure out this whole entire mess. One thing's for sure, folks. We'll be here following along every twist, every turn, every upsie, every downsy will be here to check it out, look at it, analyze it and talk about it. All right, folks, that's going to do it for tonight. Some context episodes on the way. Right back at it tomorrow morning, folks. If you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobby capuchirotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U c c I protonmail.com you can also find me on Twitter Obby Capucci. The link that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. Alright, folks, tomorrow morning I'll be back and I will talk to all of you then. And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Today is the day, folks. Juror number 50, Scotty David, is going to make his appearance in front of Judge Nathan and she is going to make a decision whether to declare Ghislaine Maxwell's verdict and trial a mistrial or to go on ahead with the sentencing phase. Now, who knows what's going to happen? I'd be a liar if I sat here and told you I knew what was going to happen one way or the other. Up until recently, I was relatively confident that we wouldn't see a mistrial here. But with him pleading the fifth and all of the things that have happened in the last couple of days, last few days, it makes me about 50, 50 at this point. And then you add on to all of that how things have happened in the past with this case and how nothing has been easy. And it makes me feel like we might be looking at some bad news later. Now again, I don't have any inside information or, you know, a pipeline into what Judge Nathan's thinking or anything like that. It's just one of those gut feelings. And when we're talking about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, this whole entire ordeal, nothing has been without roadblocks. Everything has been take two steps forward and then one step back. So while I hope that everything stands today, after Judge Nathan has her talk, we with Scotty David. I am most certainly prepared for it to go south and end up being declared, you know, a mistrial or something like that. Because again, when you're dealing with this case especially, I just expect things to go south. So before Scotty David has his time in front of Judge Nathan, there is an article over at NBC News today and it's a pretty decent article comparing the case here with Scotty David to the movie Runaway Jury, book and movie by John Grisham and how there are some parallels. So let's jump into this article from NBC News and let's see what author Andre Spector and Lindsay Gerdes have to say. The Ghislaine Maxwell case is bringing the runaway jury to life. John Grisham's fictional narrative has startling parallels to Maxwell's real life trial. After a juror stunning disclosure in John Grisham's legal thriller Runaway Jury, Nicholas Easter, portrayed by John Cusack in the movie version, connives his way onto a jury in a highly publicized trial. Boy, sounds familiar. Huh? He gains the sympathy, respect and ultimately control of enough jurors to steer the verdict against the defendant. Well, that is certainly what Scotty David has asserted, that it was his retelling of what happened to him to the other jurors that swayed the room. Now, I've said from the beginning, I'm not so convinced about that. And obviously if I was the judge, I'd want to hear from the other jurors. But according to Scotty David, that's certainly what occurred in both book and the movie Easter. His agenda, driven by his tragic past, is the hero. The corporate defendants and the defense team are the antagonists. The verdict is portrayed as just and audiences leave satisfied, even overjoyed, with the result. Now, obviously, look, all of us normal thinking, halfway decent people even look at Ghislaine Maxwell, see the verdict and know that she's guilty as hell. Right, Scotty David, or any of the other nonsense talked about, let's be very clear, the evidence is there. But even with all of that evidence, even with the mountain high load of evidence, things have to be done in a proper manner. People have to be given a fair trial without any kind of, you know, tomfoolery or BS going on. Because let's be very clear, we need to have a system that works for everybody. Grisham's fictional narrative has startling parallels to the real life trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell was convicted by a federal jury in New York in late December of reprehensible sex trafficking crimes and could spend the remaining her remaining life in federal prison. But after the trial, a juror made a stunning disclosure. He misled the court and the attorneys under oath about his own sexual abuse history as a child and drew on that history to influence other jurors, though it's not yet clear whether he did so intentionally. You know, I kind of find that a bit ridiculous. I mean, intentionally, obviously, if he did it, he did it intentionally. What, do you just show up there and you just happen to forget that you didn't answer on the questionnaire correctly? I tried to, you know, I wanted to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but the more information that comes out, certainly it looks like to me anyway, that he was playing games, manipulating the system here and trying to insert himself to become part of the story. And that is never a good way to go about things, especially if you're a juror. The idea is you're the juror, you're there to make a decision on the facts and the evidence that's put before You. You're not there to become the story. The verdict is now irrevocably tainted. The juror's conduct has turned what should have been a victory for justice on its head. And that's a big fact, too, right? People should be fired up about this. People should be agitated about this. We went through a pretty long, you know, ordeal, three weeks or so of testimony, all of these survivors getting up there recounting their stories, what they went through and how it's affected their lives. And now we're looking at maybe having to go through all of that again. And as brutal as that was for us as observers, let's remember the people who are really going to suffer once again, the survivors are going to have to relive all of this trauma in front of a courtroom, in front of a judge, and discuss all of the different things that we heard the first time around all over again. All because juror number 50 allegedly likes to play loose with the truth. On Tuesday, the court will hold an unusual hearing. The presiding judge will question the juror to determine whether he lied to her and if so, whether the lies reveal bias and should have disqualified him from serving as former federal prosecutors. We have opposed dozens of motions for new trials for various purported irregularities, but this one is different. Whatever the court concludes about the juror's credibility and bias, there. There is only one just outcome. There must be a new trial. Now, again, look, I know a lot of people don't want to hear that, and I certainly don't like reading it, but when you look at what. What has occurred here and how it's going down and how we're learning about what allegedly this dude was up to, it certainly looks like things were a bit improper, doesn't it? And Judge Nathan is probably not going to be taken too kindly to being lied to by juror number 50. So I won't even begin to try and project what's going to occur here when Judge Nathan has this dude in front of her. But it's certainly not looking good. In my opinion, no competent criminal defense attorney would have agreed to seat a juror with a history of sexual abuse in a case that turned on the credibility of witnesses who would recount similar experiences. But it's a history Maxwell's attorneys didn't know about, because in jury selection, the juror flew through the court's questions about the topic. He said, so again, when we were discussing this at the very beginning, it was always either A, Maxwell's team missed this, which was highly unlikely, or B, Juror 50. Scotty David was playing loose with the truth. And as more information came in and we heard more and more about what occurred and then to hear that he's taking the fifth, well, it was rather obvious to me anyway, that this dude told some lies. Wasn't very upfront when he was going through the questionnaire and for whatever reason thought that he needed to be on this jury. No questions asked. Color us skeptical. The juror was sworn to tell the truth and was informed he would be sitting for the Maxwell sex trafficking trial as part of the high profile case against Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell had been charged, all jurors were told, with enticing underage girls to engage in criminal sexual activity. Prosecutors alleged that for several years, Maxwell and Epstein recruited and abused girls as young as 14. So imagine, if you will, for a minute this guy sitting around and saying to himself, oh, it'll be a good idea for me to get myself on this jury. And then I'm going to go give some interviews to the media and, and spill the beans about it. What in the world could have this dude been thinking? What did he hope to gain from doing this? In the court's jury questionnaire, the juror was asked whether he'd been a victim of any crime, including whether he'd been a victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse or sexual assault. And he was asked to explain whether his past would affect his ability to serve fairly and impartially. He answered no to both of those questions, though he answered yes to inquiries elsewhere on the forum. He also responded in narrative form to certain questions, noting, for instance, that he had learned about Maxwell's connection to Epstein from cnn. So look, again, this guy obviously was telling stories here. He knew the deal. He knew he wanted to be on this jury, and he set himself up to be here. And now the rest of society and the survivors might have to pay the price for this dude's deviousness and his nonsense talk about going down as somebody in the Epstein hall of fame. If this ends up in a mistrial and the whole process has to start over again, this dude most certainly is going to be an inductee. By his account, once he was on the panel, he injected his abuse into the deliberations about predator Maxwell, as he described her sharing one story that apparently silenced the room and helped return a guilty verdict on the most serious charges. See, again, that's where I take a bit of umbrage here. I don't really believe that it was his testimony to the other jurors that swung things. I think that no matter what, she was going to be convicted. And that's the most galling thing here, the most annoying thing here, that even without this idiot interjecting his nonsense, she would have been convicted. So if this ends up in a mistrial and has to start the process all over again, that's going to be something that really just sits in the gut and makes people have a sour stomach. He said he walked away fellow. He walked fellow jurors through his own experiences and purportedly helped them accept the recollections of the victims who were testifying about abuse when they were minors. At trial, these abuse survivors had some gaps in their accounts, fertile ground for cross examination and credibility challenges. But the juror said he argued in the deliberation room that the witnesses were still believable. He, too, claims to have told fellow jurors that he could remember some details about his abuse, but not others. Now, that's pretty common knowledge. I don't think Scotty David was dropping any truth bombs that people didn't already know. I mean, it might. Might be something people in the jurors room didn't know. But again, that's why I think the other jurors have to be talked to here. Now, is the court going to do that? I have no idea, but that would seem to be the logical thing to do. That's a problem. Regardless of whether the juror is another Nicholas Easter or whether he perjured himself on the juror questionnaire, jurors should draw on their life experiences to assess evidence, though one could argue this juror's advocacy crossed the line. No one could reasonably dispute, however, that he should have disclosed his past in jury selection. Exactly. Look, this guy should have been honest from the jump. There's no way you should ever lie to get on a jury, especially a jury like this. I mean, it's just almost unbelievable, unthinkable that a guy like this could throw everything into question. All of the hard work, all of the years of gathering evidence, and this moron and his nonsense could throw all of that into jeopardy. There is a reason the defense and the prosecution get the chance to strike potential jurors in all criminal trials, and why the parties and the judge in the Maxwell case work diligently to develop a jury questionnaire more than 20 pages long. Even those who claim impartiality have backgrounds that point to potential unconscious biases or experiences that are likely to be incompatible with dispassion in a particular case. Of course, all of our life experiences, well, that forms our life views, right? If You've been abused and beat on and, you know, taken advantage of. Of course you're going to have different views than somebody who's lived a nice, posh, rich lifestyle. That's just how it works. The Maxwell juror's responses on the questionnaire and in subsequent interviews suggest that, like Grisham's fictional character, he might have harbored a hidden agenda. But even if he didn't, the appearance of a juror who is anything but disinterested, honest and faithful to his oath, passing on the guilt of a person and rallying others to his side is so deeply antithetical to our criminal justice system that this verdict simply cannot stand. Justice, the famed jurist Felix Frankfurter once observed, must satisfy the appearance of justice. Well, I'm not too sure about all of that. I'm not a lawyer, so I won't even begin to dive into, you know, the particulars there, precedent and all of that. But from a purely selfish point of view, I really hope that this, this verdict stands. I know that none of you want to go back and relive all of that. I certainly don't. The survivors don't. But when you look at it from a completely surgical viewpoint and the viewpoint from equity under the law, no matter who you are, I certainly would want a new trial here if I was Maxwell. In Maxwell's case, prosecutors took the unusual and commendable step of alerting the court to the jurors interviews and requesting an inquiry. In the vast majority of cases, the government vigorously opposes full blown hearings, and as it did recently in the trial against narco kingpin Waco Joaquin El Chapo Guzman. So the court usually doesn't want to go back and retry these verdicts. Right. We've talked about that a lot. They're usually dead set against it unless there's something that knocks them off the perch and makes them take another look. And most certainly that's what we have here. In that case, a juror claimed the panel disregarded the judge's instructions by constantly reviewing media coverage of the case. The coverage summarized evidence that was ruled too inflammatory to be admissible at trial. And prosecutors usually succeed in their efforts not to have convictions vacated based on juror misconduct. The law is so firmly against revisiting jury selection and deliberations. El Chapo's conviction was affirmed, but the Maxwell judge sought further briefing Tuesday before ordering a limited inquiry. And that's where it gets a bit concerning. Right. You see all of these other cases where that hasn't occurred, and then you look at what we have here with Maxwell, and it looks like things are going a different way. At Tuesday's hearing, she will examine the juror herself with input from the parties, focusing only on the responses the juror gave to two questions. Recent binding precedent allows a judge to deny a new trial even if a juror is found to have lied in the court in jury selection and continues to do so at a hearing. That doesn't sound good to me, honestly. I mean, really. So a juror can lie and the judge can still say, hey, look, this is a good trial. No wonder our justice system is so broken. And imagine trying to deal with this, navigating this without any high profile attorneys. The government, however, should go beyond its initial praiseworthy step and the minimum, the minimum of what the law requires. It should agree to retry the case. There's no dispute about what the juror said to the media. He even conducted a video interview. Even if he denies those statements or the court concludes after the hearing that the juror's lies or misstatements in jury selection don't sufficiently establish bias. Would a reasonable observer feel satisfied with the process? Would you if you were the defendant? If we want to follow Frank Furter's timeless admonition deeply ingrained in our criminal justice system, then retrying Maxwell should be a no brainer. Don't let the image of a runaway juror trample our legal system. Well, I don't know about all of that. I'm not a lawyer or anything to the degree of the people who are writing this article. So I'll continue to say that I want this verdict to stand. But I understand why there's a inquiry here and I certainly understand why Maxwell and her team would be pushing for a new trial. Now, is that going to occur? We'll have to wait and see, folks. Later on tonight during the evening update, I'll be back and we'll talk about what happened in the courtroom today and wrap up the proceedings. But until then, expect some more episodes on their way, context and otherwise. And if you'd like to contact me, you can do that@bobby capuchirotonmail.com that's B O B B Y C A P U C C I at protonmail. Com. You can also find me on Twitter at B o b b Y. Underscore Capuci. The link that we discussed can be found in the description box. All right, folks.
