Transcript
Bobby Capucci (0:00)
Tyler redick here from 2311 racing another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary BTW group void where prohibited by law. CTNCs21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino. This is Mike Bolo of Lexicon Valley and I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words? Do you communicate or acquire information with you? You know, language? Hey, us too. So join us on Lexicon Valley to chew over the history, culture and many mysteries of English, plus some lice cracks. Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts. What's up everyone? And welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Tonight we're going to continue talking about the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict and specifically about the interview given by one of the jurors. And now all of the fallout surrounding that interview. Now, this all stems from his account of how he gave his personal story inside of the jurors room to the other jurors as they were deliberating Ghislaine Maxwell's fate. Trying to draw a picture for some of the other jurors, I guess, about how memories of the real core issues when it comes to trauma never change. And he tried to paint a picture of that for the other jurors using his own past experiences. And now the question is, was he forthcoming during juror selection when asked questions about sexual abuse? That's really the main question here, right? There's a lot of other things going on and, you know, a lot of other background noise. But the main question is, was this gentleman truthful when he was being selected to be put upon this jury? So now the federal government, well, they've decided that they're gonna do an inquiry into this. They have petitioned the court, and I'm gonna read to you the letter that the United States Attorney of the Southern District of New York sent to Judge Nathan. Dear Judge Nathan, the government has become aware that a juror has given several interviews to press outlets regarding his jury service in this case. While 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. In particular, the juror has described being a victim of sexual abuse. Assuming the accuracy of the reporting, the juror asserted that he flew through the prospective juror questionnaire and does not recall being asked whether he had been a victim of sexual abuse, but stated that he would have answered honestly. So Right off the jump, I mean, you got to say to yourself here, what the hell? Now a lot of this testimony was given under seal, right? The juror testimony, the, I mean, the questioning to get onto the panel. So we really don't know what's going on and what's under seal, but the government does. So the government calling an inquiry here is a bit concerning in my opinion. And look, I've said it from the beginning, folks, I have no faith when it comes to the federal government prosecuting cases like this. When it comes to them prosecuting me or you, hell yeah, they're gonna send us up the river without a paddle, as the saying goes. But people like this, forget it. So we'll have to see what, what comes of it. But man, oh man. Based on the foregoing, the government believes the court should conduct an inquiry. The government proposes that the court schedule a hearing in approximately one month along with an appropriate schedule for pre hearing briefing regarding the applicable law and the scope of the hearing. The government respectfully submits that any juror investigation should be conducted exclusively under the supervision of the court. If the court decides to schedule a hearing, the government respectfully suggests that the court staff promptly contact the juror to notify him of the hearing and inquire whether he would like counsel to be appointed in connection with it. Yo, and this is why I say all the time, there's no need to run out and speak to the media and get yourself in all kinds of trouble. You ever find yourself in a situation like this, best bet, don't speak to the media. The legacy media, they are not your friends. They don't have your best interest at heart. You know, they're not your, your local independent content creator that you talk to on the Internet all the time. These people are looking to break that story. They want them clicks, whatever drives the news. And now, as you know, I don't really blame them, right? That's their job and that's the culture that we're in. But the reality of it is, if you're ever somebody who, you know is in a situation like this, I would suggest not to speak to the media at all because find yourself in a very difficult situation sometimes. The government reached out to defense counsel last night regarding the juror's statements, but defense counsel have not yet responded and thus the government is not aware of the defense position of, of on this issue. So that was the letter sent by Damian Williams, who is the u. S. Attorney for the southern, the southern district of New York. That means he's Maureen Comey, Allison Moe, Laura Pomerantz, Andrew Rohrbach, all of their boss. So it's a pretty serious situation, obviously. Right. And the government here, again, remember, they're the ones who know what's under seal. We don't. So them calling for this investigation certainly is a bit concerning. If you're asking me from the peanut gallery, again, remember, I am not a lawyer or a prosecutor. I've never even been in a court of law for something like this. So I. I couldn't, you know, tell you the likelihood of mistrial or anything like that. But the good news is the article that we're going to use today and talk about today from a Law and crime and Adam Clasfeld, they're gonna get into that a little bit more. So whenever we have one of these sorts of issues, as far as real legalese going on, I always like to use law and crime and somebody like Adam Klassfeld because, you know, it's kind of what they do for a living. Always a good idea to, you know, if you want to get ice cream, to go to the ice cream shop. Right. All right. So that said, let's take a look at this article and let's see what we have going on here. Headline Court in Inquiry requested after Ghislaine Maxwell juror goes public as survivor of Sexual Abuse. Like I said, this is from Law and Crime, and the author is Adam Classfeld. The day after three interviews ran with a Ghislaine Maxwell juror coming out as a survivor of sexual abuse, federal prosecutors requested a court inquiry into how those accounts square with the man's answers to a jury questionnaire before trial. So if, for instance, okay, let's just speculate here. And that's all I'm doing. If he answered that he had never been sexually assaulted on that questionnaire, this is going to spell big trouble for the prosecution. And this will probably end up in a place of a mistrial at that point. So really, like we said this this morning, it comes down to what he said during that questionnaire and was he truthful? Was he honest? Was he not? That's really what the real question is here. And for me, you would think that some of that has to fall on the defense, though, right? Isn't it their job to vet these jurors and make sure that there's nobody that might be, I don't know, somebody that harbors ill will towards their client? Isn't that what the whole process is about? Even though they answer the questionnaire, each juror has to be asked questions as well by the prosecution and the defense as they're going through the selection process. So you would think something like this would have come up. And so that, that, that makes me believe for at least a little anyway, that there might be, you know, much ado about nothing going on here. And again, speculation. It, whatever he answered on that questionnaire is going to tell the tale here, folks. And you know, them calling for this inquiry, that's what they're going to be trying to get down to the bottom of. Did he lie? Right. Did he answer? No, I have never been a victim of sexual abuse and then come out in the jury room and have a whole different thing to say. And if that's the case, as much of a monster as I think Ghislaine Maxwell is, that certainly would seem to me to be grounds for a mistrial. There has to be a certain standard that's followed, right? And you can't, as a juror, you can't be lying and, and, and shit like that and sitting in a juror's box and deciding the fate of one of your peers. So we're gonna have to see what this inquiry comes up with. And I will say that it certainly is concerning, but I'm not gonna jump off of the deep end just yet until we have all of the facts right. Shortly after the government's request, Maxwell's attorney, Christian Everdell claimed that the revelation regarding the juror presents incontrovertible grounds for a new trial. Oh, you know, he'd love that, right, Glenn Maxwell's lawyers. Not only the fact that obviously that people don't like to lose, lawyers included, but they know the meter is running a whole new trial. Back up the Brinks truck. We're gonna need new experts. We're gonna need Elizabeth Loftus 2.0. You know how it goes. They're gonna do everything they possibly can to get a new. Get this called a mistrial and have things, you know, crack off once again. And if you leave any leeway for these people, any sort of loophole or technicality, you better believe these lawyers are gonna grab onto it like a pit bull and not let go. And it's up to the prosecution to make sure that that doesn't happen. By the way, again, like I've said from Jump street, folks, the SDNY is not what it used to be. In a separate letter, is co counsel Jeffrey Pagluccia argued that further investigation was unwarranted and the court can and should order a new trial without, without any evidentiary hearing. Oh, that's a pretty bold statement there, Mr. Jeffrey P. Another one. He's like, yo, the meter is running. We had a great year last year. At the end of the year, as far as our financials go, considering how long this trial was drawn out, let's get another trial locked in so I can secure another bag here. All right, all right. I'm being a wise guy with that, but, you know, these lawyers are making a ton of money, and again, they don't like to lose. So if any sort of technicality or loophole presents itself, they're going to dive in. And to be frank, if it was me whose life was on the line, I would be demanding a mistrial here, too, probably. Now, is it going to work? I don't know. But I would be demanding it as well, I'll tell you that much. Because we know the evidence isn't there to get you out. If you're Ghislaine Maxwell, it's going to be a loophole or a technicality if you ever walk as a free woman again. So you better hope that it's something like this, because short of that, the party is over for her. The Supreme Court has held that to be entitled to a new trial, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question, and then further show that a correct response would have provided valid basis for a challenge for cause. Pagluccia's letter states the standard applies even if the juror's conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. And again, down to the legalese part of it. Right. I don't know how that. What the precedent says of that. I haven't dug into case study or anything like that, but you would think that they have a valid argument here, and it pains me to say that, but again, like I always say, you gotta follow the evidence, right? Even if it leads you to a place that's uncomfortable or that you don't wanna be. But from what we see here, it certainly looks like they, at the very least, have an argument for this. And it's gonna come down to what Judge Nathan thinks before the end of the day. On Wednesday, U.S. district Judge Allison Nathan set a briefing schedule on Maxwell's request for a new trial. The defense motion is due on January 19. The government must reply by February 2, and Maxwell will have every opportunity to respond. A week later, the judge reserved decision on whether a formal court inquiry will be necessary. So we're in a holding pattern here, folks. We don't know, right? What's gonna happen one way or the other. You'll have some people that are gonna talk about the sky is falling and this is the end of it all and she's gonna get out. And who knows, maybe that is the case. I'm not willing to hop off of that bridge yet, though. There's a lot more to see here. And really, it's gonna come down to the particulars inside of that sealed conversation, that sealed questionnaire.