Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit

[agricola]

In other news... In the parallel proceedings, Dershowitz just told the judge that he intends to depose Carolyn (a witness in the Maxwell trial), to prove that Giuffre was Epstein's co-conspirator, rather than victim.

TBF that is how Epstein tried to operate - to try and get everyone involved guilty of something criminal, so he'd be protected whilst he raked in the cash.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

The Graun says:

'One inquiry on the questionnaire stated: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?”'

I don't know how accurate that it, but it seems inherently unlikely they'd ask about family but not the prospective jurors themselves.

No, it did sound iffy, but as Pickman's model states, it's easy to misread a question, especially if there's lots of questions, which on a US form there will be.

 

[scalyboy]

Yeah, that's looking most likely. But, if it had been accepted that a positive answer was a good basis to exclude a potential juror and this one answered falsely in the negative (even if innocently), or if the defence can say their have used one of their peremptory challenges to exclude this juror, that might be enough for a mistrial, especially given his comments about how he introduced stuff that wasn't evidence to his fellow jurors.

If this does eventually mean a mistrial and a retrial, surely she would be found guilty again? Her lawyers didn't seem to present much of a defence, other than "they're all lying" did they? I suppose the damning press coverage of her subsequent to her conviction could be argued as prejudicial as influencing second set of jurors, but I guess if that argument held water, there would never be any retrials...

 

[agricola]

I think the issue is likely to be whether or not he told the truth on the screening questionnaire. I think that'd be more of a sticking point than the fact that he was abused. The US jury system, including how they're picked is bonkers. But I guess there's pros and cons of them being transparent afterwards.

Perhaps, though I think where the mistrial will come from is (according to reports) him telling the rest of the jury that sexual assault survivors think in a certain way.

Saying "I am a victim of a similar offence" may not be a problem, but saying "you can believe this person because victims of that offence behave in this way" is - he has become a witness, not a juror.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Of the five charges she was convicted on, the verdicts were unanimous, so unless Maxwell's legal team are planning on arguing that this was some serious Jimmy Stewart-level jurorising then I don't necessarily see the judge automatically waving the white flag on this.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Perhaps, though I think where the mistrial will come from is (according to reports) him telling the rest of the jury that sexual assault survivors think in a certain way.

Saying "I am a victim of a similar offence" may not be a problem, but saying "you can believe this person because victims of that offence behave in this way" is - he has become a witness, not a juror.

It's a very fine line, as each juror brings a different life experience with them and those whose experience is more relevant to the case will of course speak up and be listened to by the others who have no experience in such matters, that's how the system is set up. But of course it could be too influential as to create unfair bias.

 

[two sheds]

He wasn't trying to hide the fact, which does suggest he just innocently missed the 'you or' on the form. Even though it's a strange thing to miss.

 

[kabbes]

More likely is that he answered the form entirely correctly and just doesn’t remember answering that question. People’s memory is generally poor for details like what question they answered on a form months previously

 

[Athos]

If this does eventually mean a mistrial and a retrial, surely she would be found guilty again? Her lawyers didn't seem to present much of a defence, other than "they're all lying" did they? I suppose the damning press coverage of her subsequent to her conviction could be argued as prejudicial as influencing second set of jurors, but I guess if that argument held water, there would never be any retrials...

She's got nothing to lose. Maybe try a different approach next time, if she does get a second bite of the cherry.

 

[Athos]

More likely is that he answered the form entirely correctly and just doesn’t remember answering that question. People’s memory is generally poor for details like what question they answered on a form months previously

Maybe. But I'd have thought that if he had answered it correctly the defence would've used one of its peremptory challenges to exclude him.

 

[Athos]

Of the five charges she was convicted on, the verdicts were unanimous, so unless Maxwell's legal team are planning on arguing that this was some serious Jimmy Stewart-level jurorising then I don't necessarily see the judge automatically waving the white flag on this.

I hope you're right. But the US system is much more of a stickler for procedural rules than ours. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a mistrial.

 

[Athos]

Perhaps, though I think where the mistrial will come from is (according to reports) him telling the rest of the jury that sexual assault survivors think in a certain way.

Saying "I am a victim of a similar offence" may not be a problem, but saying "you can believe this person because victims of that offence behave in this way" is - he has become a witness, not a juror.

This.

 

[Pickman's model]

Its all just wishfull thinking, he wont ever go to court.

The problem is he's already been

 

[existentialist]

He wasn't trying to hide the fact, which does suggest he just innocently missed the 'you or' on the form. Even though it's a strange thing to miss.

Given that terms like "sexual abuse" are often quite hot buttons for people, I could well understand that a casual skim-read of the question might have those words jump out for someone, and obscure the other subtleties. It's a bit like those things that get interminably posted on Facebook where all the vowels are missing, or there's a deliberate typo, but people are still able to read them, and often don't notice the typo or repeated word.

 

[Athos]

For what it's worth, I think this is the final version of the questionnaire. See number 48.

 

[agricola]

It's a very fine line, as each juror brings a different life experience with them and those whose experience is more relevant to the case will of course speak up and be listened to by the others who have no experience in such matters, that's how the system is set up. But of course it could be too influential as to create unfair bias.

Indeed, but sadly I think (if it is as described) this bloke's behaviour probably has stepped over the line here. Using life experience might be fine, but when you start to tell the other jurors why they should believe a witness (or not) based on that then it is nearly always going introduce an element of unfairness.

 

[1927]

Also I know some people will say Blimey, it seems an awful drag flying all the way to America to tell a chap one can't be his chum anymore, what?. But of course, transatlantic telephone calls were so super expensive in those days and mummy had no spare telegrams I could cadge that week. So yah, bit of a pickle.

I think seeing as they hadn't spoken in years that just not communicating again would have been enough. I doubt Epstein was sitting on Nonce Island wondering if Andy was still a mate!

 

[1927]

If the argument is that she should have been released as a juror because of his experiences, why should the fact that he was the subject of sexual abuse be relevant? You could argue just as strongly that someone who hasn't been the subject of sexual abuse shouldn't be accepted on to the jury!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Graun says:

'One inquiry on the questionnaire stated: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?”'

I don't know how accurate that it, but it seems inherently unlikely they'd ask about family but not the prospective jurors themselves.

Kinell, how many people don't have any friends or family who have ever been a victim of sexual harassment/abuse/assault?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

For what it's worth, I think this is the final version of the questionnaire. See number 48.

Can see how you'd miss that, loads of questions on there. String her up!

 

[Athos]

If the argument is that she should have been released as a juror because of his experiences, why should the fact that he was the subject of sexual abuse be relevant? You could argue just as strongly that someone who hasn't been the subject of sexual abuse shouldn't be accepted on to the jury!

I think the argument will be a more procedural one. In jury selection the defendant has a right to a limited number of peremptory challenges i.e. they can have potential jurors excluded without providing any reason (except if it's someone from a minority, in which case they need to give a reason); the argument will be she's been denied this right by virtue of the juror not telling the truth on the questionnaire.* And she'll argue that its not just a theoretical loss of a right; she'll claim a consequence is that he's effectively introduced untested and unqualified evidence to the jury about a victim's memory, which goes to a topic on which she called an expert witness. (*Moreso if that is shown to be deliberate i.e. to avoid being excluded.)

 

[scalyboy]

Seems that is very common in the US and almost never succeeds. The whole point of a jury of your peers is that they bring a range of life experiences with them. Also a reason why jurors in the U.K. are prohibited from talking about shit like this.

I've always thought it weird how US jurors (in some states, or across the entire USA?) are allowed to talk to the press... it seems different to me from trials being allowed to be filmed, as that arguably allows for more transparency than just a court transcript, as in the UK.

But a juror could say any old made-up shite to a newspaper, or they might tell the truth and explain how they had arrived at a decision on some daft or prejudiced reason, which could undermine trust in the whole jury trial process. Either way it would be just one person's word rather than the impartiality of a filmed record.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've always thought it weird how US jurors (in some states, or across the entire USA?) are allowed to talk to the press... it seems different to me from trials being allowed to be filmed, as that arguably allows for more transparency than just a court transcript, as in the UK.

But a juror could say any old made-up shite to a newspaper, or they might tell the truth and explain how they had arrived at a decision on some daft or prejudiced reason, which could undermine trust in the whole jury trial process. Either way it would be just one person's word rather than the impartiality of a filmed record.

Aside from anything else, I think I'd be pissed off with a fellow juror spouting off if they mentioned anything to do with me, even obliquely - 'I changed my mind when the devastatingly handsome juror made that excellent point', etc. Whole point of jury service is that it's supposed to be a civic duty. Think it's reasonable to expect privacy to come along with that.

 

[kabbes]

Maybe. But I'd have thought that if he had answered it correctly the defence would've used one of its peremptory challenges to exclude him.

Maybe. Or maybe the defence rolled the die on this juror because his other responses and his demographic met their criteria and they didn’t want to risk the replacement being less friendly. Or maybe the defence team had their own blind spot when they reviewed his answers, such as only looking for red flags associated with female jurors, particularly if his answer was quite anodyne yet true. Lots of maybes

 

[Pickman's model]

Two jurors disclosed abuse during deliberations according to mail

 

[Athos]

Maybe. Or maybe the defence rolled the die on this juror because his other responses and his demographic met their criteria and they didn’t want to risk the replacement being less friendly. Or maybe the defence team had their own blind spot when they reviewed his answers, such as only looking for red flags associated with female jurors, particularly if his answer was quite anodyne yet true. Lots of maybes

Yeah, we don't really know enough yet. But, if he answered incorrectly, that's significant; it would mean she's effectively been denied her legal right to make an informed peremptory challenge. Will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

[Yossarian]

If the headline ends up being "Mistrial Declared After Loudmouth Juror Blabs to Press," they should maybe frame it and put on the wall of the jury room next time there's a trial this high-profile.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

It does seem a bit of a cunt’s trick to possibly cause a mistrial because he couldn’t resist getting his five mins in the limelight.

 

[Sue]

Kinell, how many people don't have any friends or family who have ever been a victim of sexual harassment/abuse/assault?

This exactly.

 

[agricola]

If the headline ends up being "Mistrial Declared After Loudmouth Juror Blabs to Press," they should maybe frame it and put on the wall of the jury room next time there's a trial this high-profile.

Carbonite would also be effective in such situations