It took years to develop the case against Ghislaine Maxwell and weeks to try the case and all that work could go for naught after 2 jurors gave an interview after the case, telling the interviewer that she had been the victim of sexual abuse during the deliberations in the Maxwell case. That is highly prejudicial and juries are supposed to reach a verdict based on the facts presented by the prosecution and the defense.
You never know what a judge might do, but it is altogether possible that he will dismiss the case without prejudice, which will allow the prosecutors a second chance to secure a not guilty verdict. The reason jurors are told not to watch TV or read newspapers is that they are forbidden to investigate on their own or to inject anything into the deliberations that were not presented during the trial.
One of the jurors told the others during deliberations:
“I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video. But I can’t remember all the details, there are some things that run together.”
“When I shared that, they were able to sort of come around on, they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.”
A second juror related a story of the abuse she suffered as a child and that seemed to help shape the jury’s thinking on the case, which is exactly why it is not allowed.
Court documents reportedly show that jury candidates were asked during the selection process if they or any family members had been victims of sexual abuse. But Scotty David told Reuters that he “flew through” the questionnaire and did not remember the question, though he said he would have answered honestly if he had been asked.
Legal analysts, however, say it’s unlikely that he would have been selected if he had answered affirmatively to the question.
Matthew Barhoma, a criminal appeals lawyer in Los Angeles, told Insider that “if the defense knew about it, they would’ve dismissed him.”