Beyond The Horizon

ICYMI: Ghislaine Maxwell And Her Hope For A Mistrial

Ghislaine Maxwell and her legal team hoped that the situation with Juror 50 would lead to a mistrial. Unfortunately for her, it did not.

Let's take a look.

(commercial at 9:35)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Duration:: 23m
Broadcast on:: 14 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

Every day we rise, challenging ourselves to work for what we believe in. At US Border Patrol, protecting our borders is more than a job. It's a calling. Agents answer the call, working together to keep our country and community safe. If you are ready for a new mission, join US Border Patrol and go beyond. Learn more at cbp.gov/careers. When you need meal time inspiration, it's worth shopping king supers, where you'll find over 30,000 mouth-watering choices that excite your inner foodie. And no matter what tasty choice you make, you'll enjoy our everyday low prices, plus extra ways to save, like digital coupons, worth over $600 each week. You can also save up to $1 off per gallon at the pump with fuel points. More savings and more inspiring flavors make shopping king supers worth it every time. King supers, fresh for everyone, fuel restrictions apply. - Welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. Hope everybody's having a great morning out there, and hopefully the rest of your day is even better. Today on the program, we're going to talk a little bit more about the possibility that Maxwell's conviction gets overturned and that her trial is declared a mistrial. Now we have heard from several experts here on the podcast and elsewhere about the eventuality of Maxwell's conviction and if it will be overturned or not. And really, all anyone can do at this point is speculate. So when we're in a situation like this, what I like to do is add as many opinions from the experts as possible, as much context as possible, so that we get as clear of a picture as we possibly can. So today, that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna hear from another expert, another legal expert who's going to give us their hot take on the current situation. But before we dive into that, we're gonna touch real quick on Prince Andrew and his sale of the ski chile. Now he is in a big time bind, right? He's gonna owe a bunch of money one way or the other and it would lead one to believe that selling off a property, the way he is selling off this property here in Switzerland, that that money would be used to go to pay off legal fees and any kind of settlement with Virginia Roberts. But according to Spencer Coovin, who is one of the lawyers for the survivors, he's been relatively outspoken as well, he says that it looks like a move of Andrew just basically reorganizing his funds so he can protect that money and those funds from being seized or having to give access to his accuser. So that's a pretty interesting development on that end of the case. And we're gonna wait for a little more context to be provided, but it certainly is an angle worth exploring. We know that Prince Andrew and his legal team are relatively shrewd when it comes to things like this and any time you have singer and Brexler involved, you know that there's some moves going on behind the scenes. So if they feel like they can reorganize and get that money protected so that Virginia has an even harder time getting to it, you know that's what they're going to do. The more layers of insulation they can provide between old princely old boy over here and him getting the hammer dropped on them so much the better from their perspective, right? So that's what they're gonna continue to do. And Prince Andrew, look, as much of a boob as he is, the guy has a lot of dough, he has a lot of influence and he has, you know, the royal family, they might be acting like they're not backing him, you know, for all intents and purposes in the public view, but who knows what's going on behind the scenes? And we know the queen hasn't completely exiled him, we know the queen hasn't completely told him to get lost. So behind the scenes, I would guess that he is receiving support from the queen as well. And you know that this is going to cost a ton of money. So Prince Andrew is going to really have to figure it out and it's my hope that Virginia's legal team continues to be super aggressive and keep him on his heels. Because you know what, that's what he deserves. He deserves to wake up every morning, have anxiety, not know what's coming next and worrying about the other shoe getting ready to drop. Just like all of these survivors had to worry for all of their lives, basically, after they were abused by Epstein. So it's shitty when the karma train comes around, huh? Real shitty when it makes a stop at your station. So that's a quick update there about Prince Andrew and the ski house he had there for sale in Switzerland. And when we get some more information, some more context, we'll dive in and do a full episode about it if it's noteworthy enough. But with that said, today we're going to talk a little bit more about juror number 50, Scotty David and the situation surrounding the Maxwell conviction. Now, I've said from the beginning, it doesn't look good for Mr. Scotty David. Certainly looks to me like he lied. Obviously, until we have confirmation of that, it's just a guess, right? But when you look at the tea leaves and you look at how everything is falling here, certainly looks like he was loose with the truth and didn't give all of the information that is required up front. So if that's the case, then you would think that Maxwell's team would certainly have merit for a missed trial. That's what the common man would think, right? Someone in the peanut gallery who's not a lawyer who doesn't follow this stuff. Well, according to some of the experts, as Lee Corso would say, not so fast, my friend. So today we have an article from the New York Daily News and it's authored by Jeffrey Abramson, Headline. How will Galain Maxwell juror compromise her right to a fair trial and why that won't be enough to invalidate the verdict? Now this has me torn, right? Because I wanna see Maxwell go to prison for the rest of her life, but at the same time, I believe that there needs to be a fair system that sends people to prison or we're all screwed. We all know it's not fair as it is, so are we going to make it even less fair? It's a pretty important situation when we're talking about a jury being selected. And as much as I despise Maxwell, as much as I wanna see her rot in prison forever, I wanna make sure everything's on the up and up. And I've said that from the very beginning here on this podcast. I didn't want her to have any kind of wiggle room, any way off the hook. And unfortunately, if what we're hearing here and what I believe to be true is true, then that's exactly what we've given her. Or should I say what juror 50 has given her? Some wiggle room, a way to try and get herself off the hook. Fortunately, for the world at large, and especially the survivors, I don't think it's going to work, but it certainly gives her a few breaths, right? A little bit of an air pocket as opposed to just suffocating under the weight of 60 years in prison. Now, we're gonna have to see one way or the other of what comes of this and they're having their inquiry. But until we get there, we're gonna take another look here and see what Mr. Abramson, another expert, what he has to say. Here's why one juror's misconduct requires galain Maxwell's convictions to be tossed out. And here's why they probably won't be. The issue is whether juror 50 failed to disclose he had been sexually abused as a child. The jury questionnaire specifically asked him about this. And you see, this is the issue I have, right? As much as I despise people like Maxwell, as much as I cannot stand them, we have to have a system that works. We have to have a system that at the very least, there's at least faith in the jury selection process, right? So it's a big deal to me. And I think that it is a gross move by juror number 50 if this all pans out and it's proved to be that he did BS. I think it's really a gross, gross move by this man. And it really sets the survivors back and makes them have to relive all of this. So I hope that it doesn't have that effect, right? And I hope that we don't get him his trial here and they don't have to go through all of this again. But juror 50 and him lying, if that's the case, certainly puts us in a position where it is a possibility. Since Maxwell faced charges of sex trafficking, minor girls to Jeffrey Epstein, the relevance of whether a potential juror had experienced sexual abuse as a child was enormous. If juror 50 had made the required disclosure, the trial judge, Alison Nathan, almost surely would have asked follow-up questions during the part of jury selection and the questionnaire section. And instead, she asked the juror 48 questions, none of which were about sexual abuse. So it certainly looks like he wasn't truthful, right? When you look at everything that we have looked at here on the podcast, everything you folks have read elsewhere, it's rather obvious that he was not truthful on this questionnaire. And that's gonna be a big problem. Now, is it going to be enough to get a mistrial declared? That's the question we're all asking. And who knows? We're gonna have to see. We're gonna have to see what Judge Nathan thinks, and we're gonna have to see what kind of precedent has been set previous. - Hi, Miracle. - If Maxwell's lawyers had known of juror 50's history, they would have probed the matter and probably challenged the juror for cause. They likely would have argued that any juror who had been abused as a child would identify with Maxwell's survivors and could not be fair. Well, that does sound like the case, right? You would think that her lawyers would not want somebody like this on the jury. Now, with that said, we have to also keep in mind that maybe they made a mistake. Maybe he was truthful and her lawyers missed it. Now, do I think that's the likeliest of possibilities? I do not. But until we know we can't just say that, that didn't happen. So that's why we're here digging through all of this. We're trying to get to that gold, right? Swimming through the Merck, looking for some clarity. Nathan would then have asked juror 50 whether he could put aside the past and decide the case solely upon the evidence. If she were satisfied with juror 50's assurances, she would have denied the challenge for cause. If unsatisfied, she would have granted it. So that's how it works, right? Both sides get to take a look at the jurors, get to try and choose potential jurors, and then if one of them objects to a potential juror being selected, then the judge comes in and she or he will make that decision. But I would think that if Mr. juror 50 here, Scotty David was honest that Judge Nathan would have pursued that line of questioning. And again, that's just my guess. Maybe Judge Nathan missed it too. But Occam's razor and all, right? Even if they lost a challenge for cause against juror 50, Maxwell's lawyers may have used one of their pre-emptory challenges to strike them. Within limits, pre-emptory challenges give either side the right to strike any juror they suspect will favor the other side. And that makes sense. That's the whole point of trying to select a jury, right? As opposed to just having a jury appointed, the process is, jurors, potential jurors are brought in, then both sides get to question them, go through some, you know, different scenarios, and try and figure out who is going to be best suited to sit and hear this case, and potentially get their client off. Or on the flip side, who's gonna be best to hear this case, and give the prosecution a conviction. - We all have somewhere we're trying to get to. As the largest energy producer in Colorado, Chevron is helping meet rising demand and we're working to do it responsibly. Our next-gen, tankless facilities reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our operations by more than 90% compared to our older designs. Working to provide Colorado with energy that's affordable, reliable, and ever cleaner. So everyone can get to where they wanna be. You've arrived. That's Energy in Progress. Visit chevron.com/tankless. - I'm Victoria Cash. Thanks for calling the Lucky Land Hotline. If you feel like you do the same thing every day, press one. If you're ready to have some serious fun for the chance to redeem some serious prizes, press two. - We heard you loud and clear. So go to luckylandslots.com right now and play over 100 social casino style games for free. Get lucky today. At luckylandslots.com. - Available to players in the U.S. Excluding Washington, Michigan. No purchase necessary. B.G.W. Group, vibrated by law. 18+ turn to commission supply. - In short, Jur's 50's failure to disclose his past kept the court and parties from making informed decisions about his impartiality. As the Supreme Court noted, the necessity of truthful answers by prospective Jur's is to serve its purpose is obvious. And again, the process has to be followed. I know that if I was on trial, I'd want as fair of a trial as I possibly could have. And I certainly wouldn't want, I don't know, say it was a financial crime, right? I certainly wouldn't want a jur who has been swindled to be on the jury. So you could definitely see where their objection would come from. Now, is that objection going to be strong enough? I don't think so, but who knows? There's a lot of precedent that has to be done away with if we get an overturned conviction here. And like we've said several times here on the podcast, once the court makes a decision, you really have to show it some evidence for them to change that decision. In 1984, the Supreme Court set out guidelines for determining when a jur's failure to disclose relevant information is serious enough to violate a defendant's right to an impartial jury. To warn a new trial, the court ruled a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question during the questioning period and then further show that a correct response would have provided valid basis for a challenge for cause. I mean, certainly looks to me like that's right on pace with where we're at, right? Applying that standard, Nathan should, with a reluctance most of us share, grant Maxwell a new trial. This juror's silence denied Maxwell the right to develop a valid challenge for cause. And here's where I'm torn, right? I agree that, you know, her rights as far as a fair trial need to be respected. But again, I don't feel like I am educated enough in the legal realm to dive in hard enough one way or the other here and state definitively if this should be a mistrial or not. It's really out of my lane to be honest with you folks. That's why I'm trying to compile all of these opinions from all of these experts. And, you know, that way we can come up to a conclusion. But it certainly looks like if we're just going by the standard set here by the Supreme Court that Maxwell would have cause at the very least to petition the court for a new trial. But Nathan may well find that the misconduct does not require overturning the guilty verdicts. For starters, she knows that courts have excused for her worst juror misconduct. The Supreme Court has let stand guilty verdicts returned by jurors drunk or high on cocaine. Other courts have found verdicts valid even though jurors slept through the testimony. I mean, sheesh. If I was a defendant in the court and it was found out that one of my jurors was high on coke or drunk and I still got convicted, boy, I'd be hot as hell. Let me tell you that much right now. I'd be fired up. Now don't get me wrong. Should be more mad at yourself for committing the crime. But imagine if you're innocent and you get a juror who don't give a shit comes and all gacked up on blow. Forget that, that's terrible. But the Supreme Court's gonna Supreme Court and I guess the laws of the land are not for mere peasants such as us to understand. After a trial involving injury sustained in a motorcycle accident, the Supreme Court in 2014 let the jury verdict stand even though the four person failed to disclose that her own daughter had been at fault in a fatal motorcycle accident. So even though the Supreme Court has on the one hand rule that a defendant is entitled to an impartial jury, its own subsequent decisions have made it difficult to enforce that very right. And that's what I mean about precedent. So Maxwell has an uphill battle to climb here, folks. And it's never easy to get something overturned in the court. But I think it's important for us to have full context of the whole entire situation, right? Because what it does again is it just shows you how broken the system is and how it needs to be reformed and fixed. In addition, Nathan could find that any omission on juror 50's questionnaire were cured during the questionnaire session when she had the opportunity to look the juror in the eye and determine whether he was honest when he said there was absolutely nothing that would keep him from being a fair juror. And again, this is why I talk about how important it is with these judges, folks. You know, Judge Nathan's gonna be the one who really at the end of the day decides all of this. So if we don't have good quality people sitting the bench, people who actually care about the law and not, you know, promoting themselves for their next gig, then we're gonna continue to be in a situation where the system is just broken. And there's no one there to guide it correctly and put it back on course. You would think that these judges would be, you know, the final barrier, but a lot of times, you know, they're too busy acting like the king in their own court. (crickets chirping) It is the defense that bears the high burden of proving juror 50's bias. Nathan will probably not presume bias simply because juror 50 fell to disclose his child sexual abuse. She is likely to require the defense to prove actual bias and that the juror deliberately lied to get on the jury. Juror 50 maintains that any emissions were due to the length of the questionnaire and is rushing through it. So according to Scotty David, he didn't lie intentionally if he lied. It was the questionnaire was too long and he rushed through it. That's his defense. Legally speaking, it should not matter whether juror 50's mistakes on the questionnaire were intentional or inadvertent. Either way, his emissions deprive the defense of its constitutional right to probe him for bias. But don't bet on Jeffrey Epstein's procurer winning on this issue. The author of this article is also the author of We the Jerry, the Jerry System in the Ideal Democracy and he's a professor of law and government at the University of Texas at Austin. So just another perspective for you folks to consider another legal voice adding his opinion to the mix. And really that's all we can do at this point, right? Get as much information compiled as possible and try and figure out what's what. So that's what we're gonna continue to do here. We'll continue to try and make a little sense of all of this nonsense. All right, folks, that's gonna do it for this morning's episode. I will be back later on like usual with an evening update, context episodes certainly coming your way in between. If you'd like to contact me, you can do that at bobbykapucci@protonmail.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_C-A-P-U-C-C-I. The link to the article that we discussed can be found in the description box. All right, Nevada State. - Hello, it is Ryan and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now at ChumbaCassino.com. That's ChumbaCassino.com. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary. V-G-W group, voidware prohibited by law, 18-plus terms and conditions apply. Mr. World here, teaching a little math at my old elementary school. We're doing story problems today. You know, like if Johnny gets two pairs of stylish glasses for $89 at i Glass World, then Johnny's mom equals a genius. Get two pairs of back-to-school glasses for $89 and get them same day fast at i Glass World. Visit i Glass World.com to schedule your exam online and for offer details.