Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Legal Experts Weigh In On The Ghislaine Maxwell Verdict

Transcript

Legal Experts Weigh In On The Ghislaine Maxwell Verdict · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:05
  Hope everybody's having a great morning out there, and hopefully
• 0:08
  the rest of your day is even better. Today on
• 0:12
  the program, we're going to talk a little bit more
• 0:15
  about the possibility that Maxwell's conviction gets overturned and that
• 0:20
  her trial is declared a mistrial. Now, we have heard
• 0:26
  from several experts here on the podcast and elsewhere about
• 0:30
  the eventuality of Maxwell's conviction and if it will be
• 0:35
  overturned or not, And really all anyone can do at
• 0:40
  this point is speculate. So when we're in a situation
• 0:45
  like this, what I like to do is add as
• 0:47
  many opinions from the experts as possible, as much context
• 0:50
  as possible, so that we get as clear of a
• 0:54
  picture as we possibly can. So today that's what we're
• 0:58
  gonna do. We're gonna hear from another expert, another legal expert,
• 1:02
  who's going to give us their hot take on the
• 1:05
  current situation. But before we dive into that, we're gonna
• 1:10
  touch real quick on Prince Andrew and his sale of
• 1:14
  the Ski Schla. Now, he is in a big time bind, right,
• 1:20
  He's gonna owe a bunch of money one way or
• 1:22
  the other, and it would lead one to believe that
• 1:27
  selling off a property the way he is, you know,
• 1:30
  selling off this property here in Switzerland, that that money
• 1:35
  would be used to go to pay off legal fees
• 1:40
  and any kind of settlement with Virginia Roberts. But according
• 1:44
  to Spencer Covin, who is one of the lawyers for
• 1:47
  the survivors, he's been relatively outspoken as well. He says
• 1:51
  that it looks like a move of Andrew just basically
• 1:55
  reorganizing his funds so he can protect that money and
• 2:00
  those funds from being seized or having to give access,
• 2:04
  you know, to his accuser. So that's a pretty interesting
• 2:08
  development on that end of the case, and we're gonna
• 2:11
  wait for a little more context to be provided, but
• 2:15
  it certainly is an angle worth exploring. We know that
• 2:18
  Prince Andrew and his legal team are relatively shrewd when
• 2:23
  it comes to things like this, and anytime you have
• 2:26
  Singer and Brexler involved, you know that there's some moves
• 2:30
  going on behind the scenes. So if they feel like
• 2:33
  they can reorganize and you know, get that money protected
• 2:38
  so that Virginia has an even harder time getting to it,
• 2:42
  you know, that's what they're going to do. The more
• 2:44
  layers of insulation they can provide between old princely old
• 2:49
  boy over here and him getting the hammer dropped on him,
• 2:52
  so much the better from their perspective, right, So that's
• 2:56
  what they're going to continue to do. And Prince Andrew
• 3:00
  look as much of a boob as he is, the
• 3:03
  guy has a lot of dough, he has a lot
• 3:05
  of influence, and he has you know, the royal family.
• 3:08
  They might be acting like they're not backing him, you know,
• 3:11
  for all intents and purposes in the public view, but
• 3:15
  who knows what's going on behind the scenes. And we
• 3:17
  know the Queen hasn't completely exiled him. We know the
• 3:21
  Queen hasn't completely told him to get lost, So behind
• 3:25
  the scenes, I would guess that he is receiving support
• 3:28
  from the Queen as well. And you know that this
• 3:33
  is going to cost a ton of money, so Prince
• 3:36
  Andrew's going to really have to figure it out. And
• 3:40
  it's my hope that Virginia's legal team continues to be
• 3:43
  super aggressive and keep him on his heels, because you
• 3:47
  know what, that's what he deserves. He deserves to wake
• 3:50
  up every morning, have anxiety not know what's coming next,
• 3:54
  and worrying about the other shoe getting ready to drop,
• 3:58
  just like all of these survivors had the worry for
• 4:00
  all of their lives basically after they were abused by Epstein.
• 4:05
  So it's shitty when the karma train comes around. Huh,
• 4:09
  real shitty when it makes a stop at your station.
• 4:12
  So that's a quick update there about Prince Andrew and
• 4:15
  the ski and the skihouse he had there for sale
• 4:18
  in Switzerland. And when we get some more you know, information,
• 4:22
  some more context, we'll dive in into a full episode
• 4:24
  about it if it's noteworthy enough. But with that said,
• 4:29
  today we're going to talk a little bit more about
• 4:33
  jur number fifty, Scotty David and the situation surrounding the
• 4:38
  Maxwell conviction. Now I've said from the beginning, it doesn't
• 4:44
  look good for mister Scotty David. Certainly looks to me
• 4:47
  like he lied. Obviously, until we have confirmation of that,
• 4:51
  it's just a guess, right. But when you look at
• 4:55
  the tea leaves and you look at how everything is,
• 4:57
  you know, falling here, certainly looks like he was loose
• 5:01
  with the truth and didn't give all of the information
• 5:05
  that is required upfront. So if that's the case, then
• 5:09
  you would think that Maxwell's team would certainly have merit
• 5:12
  for a mistrial. That's what the common man would think,
• 5:15
  right someone in the peanut gallery who's not a lawyer,
• 5:18
  who doesn't follow this stuff. Well, according to some of
• 5:21
  the experts, as Lee Corso would say, not so fast,
• 5:25
  my friend. So today we have an article from the
• 5:29
  New York Daily News and it's authored by Jeffrey Abramson,
• 5:34
  headline howill Glen maxwellger compromised her right to a fair
• 5:38
  trial and why that won't be enough to invalidate the verdict.
• 5:43
  Now this has me torn right because I want to
• 5:45
  see Maxwell go to prison for the rest of her life.
• 5:48
  But at the same time, I believe that there needs
• 5:51
  to be a fair system that sends people to prison
• 5:55
  or we're all screwed. We all know it's not fair
• 5:57
  as it is, so are we going to get make
• 6:00
  it even less fair. It's a pretty important situation when
• 6:05
  we're talking about a jury being selected. And as much
• 6:08
  as I despise Maxwell, as much as I want to
• 6:11
  see her rotten prison forever, I want to make sure
• 6:14
  everything's on the up and up. And I've said that
• 6:16
  from the very beginning here on this podcast, I didn't
• 6:20
  want her to have any kind of wiggle room anyway
• 6:23
  off the hook. And unfortunately, if what we're hearing here
• 6:29
  and what I believe to be true is true, then
• 6:33
  that's exactly what we've given her, or should I say
• 6:35
  what Jurror fifty has given her some wiggle room, a
• 6:39
  way to try and get herself off the hook. Fortunately
• 6:43
  for the world at large and especially the survivors. I
• 6:46
  don't think it's going to work, but it certainly gives
• 6:49
  her a few breaths, right, a little bit of an
• 6:52
  air pocket as opposed to just suffocating under the weight
• 6:58
  of sixty years in prison. Now we're gonna have to
• 7:02
  see one way or the other of what comes of this,
• 7:04
  and they're having their inquiry, but until we get there,
• 7:07
  we're gonna take another look here and see what Mister Abramson,
• 7:11
  another expert, what he has to say here is why
• 7:16
  one jurors misconduct requires Glaine Maxwell's convictions to be tossed out,
• 7:21
  and here's why they probably won't be. The issue is
• 7:24
  whether Juror fifty failed to disclose he had been sexually
• 7:27
  abused as a child. The jury questionnaire specifically asked him
• 7:32
  about this. And you see, this is the issue I have, Right,
• 7:35
  as much as I despise people like Maxwell, as much
• 7:39
  as I cannot stand them, we have to have a
• 7:43
  system that works. We have to have a system that
• 7:46
  at the very least there's at least faith in the
• 7:48
  jury selection process. Right. So it's a big deal to me,
• 7:53
  And I think that it is a gross move by
• 7:57
  jur number fifty if this all pans out and it's
• 8:00
  proved to be that he did bs, I think it's
• 8:04
  really a gross, gross move by this man, and it
• 8:09
  really sets the survivors back and makes them have to
• 8:12
  relive all of this. So I hope that it doesn't
• 8:17
  have that effect, right, And I hope that we don't
• 8:20
  get a mistrial here and they don't have to go
• 8:22
  through all of this again. But Juror fifty and him lying,
• 8:27
  if that's the case, certainly puts us in a position
• 8:30
  where it is a possibility. Since Maxwell faced charges of
• 8:36
  sex trafficking minor girls. To Jeffrey Epstein, the relevance of
• 8:40
  whether a potential juror had experienced sexual abuse as a
• 8:43
  child was enormous. If Juror fifty had made the required disclosure.
• 8:49
  The trial judge Alison Nathan almost surely would have asked
• 8:53
  follow up questions during the part of jury selection and
• 8:57
  the questionnaire section, and instead she asked the juror forty
• 9:01
  eight questions, none of which were about sexual abuse. So
• 9:06
  it certainly looks like he wasn't truthful. Right when you
• 9:09
  look at everything that we have looked at here on
• 9:12
  the podcast, everything you folks have read elsewhere, it's rather
• 9:16
  obvious that he was not truthful on this questionnaire. And
• 9:19
  that's gonna be a big problem. Now. Is it going
• 9:22
  to be enough to get a mistrial declared? That's the
• 9:26
  question we're all asking, and who knows. We're gonna have
• 9:32
  to see. We're gonna have to see what Judge Nathan thinks,
• 9:34
  and we're gonna have to see what kind of precedent
• 9:37
  has been set previously. The judge did ask whether Juror
• 9:43
  fifty new of anything that would keep him from being
• 9:45
  on from being fair, and he assured the judge there
• 9:49
  was nothing. So it looks like that Juror fifty was
• 9:54
  not truthful at all here really, right, I mean, with
• 9:56
  the judge, the questionnaire, all of it. If Maxwell's lawyers
• 10:01
  had known of Juror fifty's history, they would have probed
• 10:04
  the matter and probably challenged the juror for cause. They
• 10:08
  likely would have argued that any juror who had been
• 10:10
  abused as a child would identify with Maxwell's survivors and
• 10:14
  cannot be fair. Well, that does sound like the case, right,
• 10:19
  You would think that her lawyers would not want somebody
• 10:22
  like this on the jury. Now, with that said, we
• 10:25
  have to also keep in mind that maybe they made
• 10:29
  a mistake. Maybe he was truthful and her lawyers missed it.
• 10:34
  Now do I think that's the likeliest of possibilities. I
• 10:37
  do not. But until we know, we can't just say
• 10:40
  that that didn't happen. So that's why we're here digging
• 10:44
  through all of this. We're trying to get to that gold, right,
• 10:47
  swimming through the murk looking for some clarity. Nathan would
• 10:55
  then have asked Juror fifty whether he could put aside
• 10:57
  the past and decide the case solely upon on the evidence.
• 11:01
  If she were satisfied with Juror fifty's assurances, she would
• 11:04
  have denied the challenge for cause. If unsatisfied, she would
• 11:08
  have granted it. So that's how it works, right, Both
• 11:11
  sides get to take a look at the jurors, get
• 11:14
  to try and choose potential jurors, and then if one
• 11:17
  of them objects to a potential juror being selected, then
• 11:21
  the judge comes in and she or he will make
• 11:24
  that decision. But I would think that if mister Juror
• 11:29
  fifty here, Scottie David was honest, that Judge Nathan would
• 11:34
  have pursued that line of questioning. And again that's just
• 11:39
  my guess. Maybe Judge Nathan missed it too. But Ockham's
• 11:42
  raiser and all right, even if they lost a challenge
• 11:46
  for cause against Juror fifty, Maxwell's lawyers may have used
• 11:50
  one of their peremptory challenges to strike them within limits.
• 11:54
  Peremptory challenges give either side the right to strike any
• 11:58
  juror they suspect will favor the other side, And that
• 12:02
  makes sense. That's the whole point of trying to select
• 12:04
  a jury, right as opposed to just having a jury appointed.
• 12:08
  The process is jurors, potential jurors are brought in, then
• 12:11
  both sides get to question them, go through some different
• 12:15
  scenarios and try and figure out who is going to
• 12:18
  be best suited to sit and hear this case and
• 12:21
  potentially get their client off, or on the flip side,
• 12:24
  who's going to be best to hear this case and
• 12:27
  give the prosecution a conviction? In short, jurors fifty's failure
• 12:34
  to disclose his past kept the court and parties from
• 12:37
  making informed decisions about his impartiality. As the Supreme Court noted,
• 12:42
  the necessity of truthful answers by prospective jurors is to serve.
• 12:47
  Its purpose is obvious, and again the process has to
• 12:50
  be followed. I know that if I was on trial,
• 12:53
  I'd want as fair of a trial as I possibly
• 12:55
  could have, and I certainly wouldn't want I don't know,
• 12:58
  say it was a financial right. I certainly wouldn't want
• 13:02
  a juror who has been swindled to be on the jury.
• 13:07
  So you could definitely see where their objection would come from.
• 13:11
  Now is that objection going to be strong enough? I
• 13:15
  don't think so, but who knows. There's a lot of
• 13:18
  precedent that has to be done away with if we
• 13:21
  get an overturned conviction here, And like we've said several
• 13:25
  times here on the podcast, once the court makes a decision,
• 13:28
  you really have to show it some evidence for them
• 13:31
  to change that decision. In nineteen eighty four, the Supreme
• 13:37
  Court set out guidelines for determining when a juror's failure
• 13:40
  to disclose relevant information is serious enough to violate a
• 13:44
  defendant's right to an impartial jury. To warrann a new trial,
• 13:48
  the Court ruled a party must first demonstrate that a
• 13:51
  juror failed to answer honestly a material question during the
• 13:55
  questioning period, and then further show that a correct response
• 13:59
  would have provided I did valid bases for a challenge
• 14:02
  for cause. I mean certainly looks to me like that's
• 14:07
  right on pace with where we're at. Right applying that standard,
• 14:11
  Nathan should with a reluctance, most of us share grant
• 14:15
  Maxwell a new trial. This jurors silence denied Maxwell the
• 14:20
  right to develop a valid challenge for cause. And here's
• 14:23
  where I'm torn, right, I agree that you know her
• 14:31
  rights as far as a fair trial need to be respected.
• 14:35
  But again, I don't feel like I am educated enough
• 14:39
  in the legal realm to dive in hard enough one
• 14:43
  way or the other here and state definitively if this
• 14:46
  should be a mistrial or not. It's really out of
• 14:49
  my lane to be honest with you, folks. That's why
• 14:52
  I'm trying to compile all of these opinions from all
• 14:55
  of these experts, and you know, that way we can
• 14:58
  come up, you know, to a conclusion. But it certainly
• 15:02
  looks like, if we're just going by the standards set
• 15:05
  here by the Supreme Court, that Maxwell would have cause
• 15:08
  at the very least to petition the court for a
• 15:11
  new trial. But Nathan may well find that the misconduct
• 15:17
  does not require overturning the guilty verdicts for starters. She
• 15:22
  knows that courts have excused far worse during misconduct. The
• 15:26
  Supreme Court has let stand guilty verdicts returned by jurors
• 15:29
  drunk or high on cocaine. Other courts have found verdicts
• 15:33
  valid even though jurors slept through the testimony. I mean,
• 15:36
  she sh if I was a defendant in the court
• 15:40
  and it was found out that one of my jurors
• 15:43
  was high on coke or drunk and I still got convicted. Boy,
• 15:47
  I'd be hot as hell, let me tell you that
• 15:49
  much right now. I'd be fired up. Now, don't get
• 15:53
  me wrong. Should be more mad at yourself for committing
• 15:55
  the crime. But imagine if you're innocent and you get
• 15:59
  a juror who don't give a shit, comes in all
• 16:02
  you know, gacked up on blow forget that. That's terrible,
• 16:07
  but you know, the Supreme Court's going to Supreme Court,
• 16:09
  and I guess the laws of the land are not
• 16:12
  for mere peasants such as us to understand. After a
• 16:19
  trial involving injury sustained in a motorcycle accident, the Supreme
• 16:23
  Court in twenty fourteen let the jury verdict stand even
• 16:26
  though the four person failed to disclose that her own
• 16:29
  daughter had been at fault in a fatal motorcycle accident.
• 16:33
  So even though the Supreme Court has on the one
• 16:36
  hand rule that a defendant is entitled to an impartial jury,
• 16:40
  its own subsequent decisions have made it difficult to enforce
• 16:43
  that very right. And that's what I mean about precedent.
• 16:46
  So Maxwell has an uphill battle to climb here, folks,
• 16:51
  And it's never easy to get something overturned in the court.
• 16:55
  But I think it's important for us to have full
• 16:57
  context of the whole entire situation right, because what it does,
• 17:02
  again is it just shows you how broken the system
• 17:05
  is and how it needs to be reformed and fixed.
• 17:14
  In addition, Nathan could find that any emission on juror's
• 17:17
  fifty juror fifties questionnaire were cured during the questionnaire session
• 17:22
  when she had the opportunity to look the juror in
• 17:24
  the eye and determine whether he was honest when he
• 17:27
  said there was absolutely nothing that would keep him from
• 17:30
  being a fair jur And again, this is why I
• 17:33
  talk about how important it is with these judges, folks.
• 17:37
  You know, Judge Nathan's going to be the one who really,
• 17:39
  at the end of the day, decides all of this.
• 17:41
  So if we don't have good quality people sitting the bench,
• 17:45
  people who actually care about the law and not you know,
• 17:47
  promoting themselves for their next gig, then we're going to
• 17:52
  continue to be in a situation where the system is
• 17:55
  just broken and there's no one there to guide it
• 17:59
  correctly and put it back on course. You would think
• 18:02
  that these judges would be, you know, the final barrier,
• 18:07
  but a lot of times, you know, they're too busy
• 18:10
  acting like the king in their own court. It is
• 18:19
  the defense that bears the high burden of proving juror
• 18:22
  fifties bias. Nathan will probably not presume bias simply because
• 18:26
  juror fifty failed to disclose his child sexual abuse. She
• 18:30
  is likely to require the defense to prove actual bias
• 18:34
  and that the jur deliberately lied to get on the jury.
• 18:37
  Juror fifty maintains that any emissions were due to the
• 18:40
  length of the questionnaire and is rushing through it. So,
• 18:43
  according to Scotty David, he didn't lie intentionally. If he lied,
• 18:48
  it was the questionnaire was too long and he rushed
• 18:52
  through it. That's his defense. Legally speaking, it should not
• 18:56
  matter whether juror's fifties Juror fifties mistakes on the questionnaire
• 19:00
  where intentional or inadvertent. Either way, his emissions deprived the
• 19:05
  defense of its constitutional right to probe him for bias.
• 19:09
  But don't bet on Jeffrey Epstein's procure winning on this issue.
• 19:14
  The author of this article is also the author of
• 19:19
  We the Jury, The Jury System, and the Ideal Democracy,
• 19:23
  and he's a professor of law and Government at the
• 19:26
  University of Texas at Austin. So just another perspective for
• 19:30
  you folks to consider, another legal voice adding his opinion
• 19:35
  to the mix. And really that's all we can do
• 19:37
  at this point, right, get as much information compiled as
• 19:40
  possible and try and figure out what's what. So that's
• 19:45
  what we're going to continue to do here. We'll continue
• 19:47
  to try and make a little sense of all of
• 19:50
  this nonsense. All right, folks, that's gonna do it for
• 19:54
  this morning's episode. I will be back later on like
• 19:58
  usual with an evening update context episodes certainly coming your
• 20:01
  way in between. If you'd like to contact me, you
• 20:05
  can do that at Bobby Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com.
• 20:08
  That's b O B B Y c A p U
• 20:11
  C c I at ProtonMail dot com. You can also
• 20:15
  find me on Twitter at b O B B Y
• 20:18
  underscore c A p U C c I. The link
• 20:22
  to the article that we discussed can be found in
• 20:25
  the description box. All right, folks, until later on, Hope
• 20:29
  you all have a great day.