Prince Andrew, Duke of York, named in underage 'sex slave' lawsuit
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Athos
Well-Known Member
Juror 50 now has counsel appointed.
All parties' submissions and replies scheduled to be completed by early March.
For the court to decide whether to conduct an inquiry into these events.
The prosecution asking for an inquiry, presumably to preempt the defence who are saying an inquiry isn't necessary, and that there's already enough to order a retrial. Essentially, their argument is:
'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 on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984). This standard applies
even if the juror’s conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (“We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.”).
...
Ms. Maxwell intends to request a new trial under Rule 33 because the “interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Any submission will include all known undisputed remarks of the Juror, including recorded statements, the relevant questionnaire, and other noncontroverted facts. It is clear to Ms. Maxwell that based on this record alone a new trial is required. If this Court disagrees, however, Ms. Maxwell requests that a hearing be scheduled sooner than one month from now.
Ms. Maxwell also suggests that all the deliberating jurors will need to be examined, not to impeach the verdict, but to evaluate the Juror’s conduct.
Ms. Maxwell is drafting a Rule 33 motion to be filed on a schedule ordered by the Court.'
All parties' submissions and replies scheduled to be completed by early March.
For the court to decide whether to conduct an inquiry into these events.
The prosecution asking for an inquiry, presumably to preempt the defence who are saying an inquiry isn't necessary, and that there's already enough to order a retrial. Essentially, their argument is:
'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 on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984). This standard applies
even if the juror’s conduct was merely inadvertent and not intentional. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993) (“We read [the McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements that were deliberate.”).
...
Ms. Maxwell intends to request a new trial under Rule 33 because the “interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). Any submission will include all known undisputed remarks of the Juror, including recorded statements, the relevant questionnaire, and other noncontroverted facts. It is clear to Ms. Maxwell that based on this record alone a new trial is required. If this Court disagrees, however, Ms. Maxwell requests that a hearing be scheduled sooner than one month from now.
Ms. Maxwell also suggests that all the deliberating jurors will need to be examined, not to impeach the verdict, but to evaluate the Juror’s conduct.
Ms. Maxwell is drafting a Rule 33 motion to be filed on a schedule ordered by the Court.'
ruffneck23
front left
andysays
Love and solidarity
Hard to see what objection the defence can legitimately have to saying he simply doesn't remember...
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Unless a photograph were to come to light of the juror with his arm around the bare midriff of the question, with a grinning question trafficker in the background.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
How recently the question was formulated (even if it seemed older than it actually was) is of course a moot point, because there may or may not have been a prior agreement that the question would not be asked or answered by various parties who were (or indeed were not) previously aware of the question, notwithstanding the possibility that the question was in fact not a question per se but merely a representation of a question used to elicit answers to other questions as appropriate
Athos
Well-Known Member
It's appears from his interviews with the press that he is a victim of sexual abuse.
It's clear that he was asked whether or not he was a victim of sexual abuse in the voir dire questionnaire, as part of the process for selecting a jury.
He says he doesn't remember being asked, but, if he was, he'd have disclosed the fact. Albeit he seems to admit that he "flew through" the form.
Had he answered that he was a victim of sexual abuse, the defence would have no grounds to object, now. That they have filed this motion strongly implies that the redacted part of this letter to the court says that he answered that question in the negative (which will be a matter of record).
The defendant will argue that, if he'd answered accurately, she'd have exercised her right to have him excluded from the jury. And that, because she was prevented from doing so, a situation arose whereby he effectively improperly gave evidence to other jurors about victims' memories (an important issue in the trial). Something his own account to the press about what happened in the jury room seems to support.
She'll say this meant she did not receive a fair trial.
Last edited:
Athos
Well-Known Member
“The one great principle of the [American] law is, to make business for itself. There is no other principle distinctly, certainly, and consistently maintained through all its narrow turnings. Viewed by this light it becomes a coherent scheme, and not the monstrous maze the laity are apt to think it. Let them but once clearly perceive that its grand principle is to make business for itself at their expense, and surely they will cease to grumble.”
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Tsk, you know you shouldn't prejudge the outcome of a court case
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
How'd you like your grits?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I like mine with a kiss.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Better osculate than never
UrbaneFox
They've doubled in price
Epstein was a thick-skinned man. Sometimes one really had trouble getting through to him. You can see in the photo of us walking round the park that I'm trying to explain matters in the simplest way possible, but would he listen?
Last edited:
seeformiles
Lost in the wood
The judge deciding on the 2009 agreement appears to have a different definition of “shortly” and “soon” to the rest of us - or perhaps it’s within the context of judicial time? 
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
The judge deciding on the 2009 agreement appears to have a different definition of “shortly” and “soon” to the rest of us - or perhaps it’s within the context of judicial time?
0730 in New York, so maybe later today..?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
He made the decision to throw it out on the day and has just been on the piss since. The delay is just to ensure he’s not accused of making a snap decision.The judge deciding on the 2009 agreement appears to have a different definition of “shortly” and “soon” to the rest of us - or perhaps it’s within the context of judicial time?
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
I can see your legal training showing itself there Spy
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Indeed. William Jennens - WikipediaThe judge deciding on the 2009 agreement appears to have a different definition of “shortly” and “soon” to the rest of us - or perhaps it’s within the context of judicial time?
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Based on zero legal knowledge, it wouldn't surprise me if it was thrown out. Just in a common sense approach it feels like the 2009 agreement is bound to impinge on future attempted actions. The job for Giuffre's team is to demonstrate that this one is outside of that previous settlement. If that's the outcome I think it will be wrong, for the obvious reason of nonces not getting their due deserts. But it would also feel wrong if a victim can't get recompense from both her trafficker and abuser.
Anyway, I'm hopeless at predicting football and general elections, so I hope I've got that one wrong too.
Anyway, I'm hopeless at predicting football and general elections, so I hope I've got that one wrong too.
seeformiles
Lost in the wood
Crikey - they knew how to play a long game alright
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
William Jennens (possibly Jennings) (1701–1798), also known as William the Miser, William the Rich, and The Miser of Acton
As Spymaster is known.
danski
"vibey"
Spymiser.
Similar threads
