(TheLibertyRevolution.com)- Ghislaine Maxwell, the former partner of dead millionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is reportedly seeking a new trial after being convicted of aiding Epstein’s sex crimes.
Manhattan District Judge Alison Nathan oversaw the trial in which Maxwell was found guilty of five of six charges against her, with the jury finding that she purposely trafficked young women and girls who were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein.
Attorney Christian Everdell, representing Maxwell, has since sent a letter to Judge Nathan requesting a new trial, insisting that there are “incontrovertible grounds” for Maxwell to be granted one. Everdell insists that it’s a matter of “pressing importance” and claims the disclosures from a member of the jury “influenced the deliberations and convinced other members of the jury to convict” Maxwell.
Perhaps what’s most disgusting about this situation, however, is that the juror Everdell is talking about was a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Attorneys claim that the juror could not judge fairly based on this experience.
The juror, who has asked the media only to identify him by his first and middle name “Scotty David,” recently told newspapers that he was sexually abused as a child.
A resident of Manhattan, the 35-year-old man said that he shared his experience with other members of the jury and that after doing so, “they were able to sort of come around on…they were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse.”
The attorneys say it’s bias, but other people might call it lived experience.
Whether or not this effort from Maxwell’s attorney will work now hinges on how Nathan answered questions during the jury selection process. Legal experts have said that the issue of sexual abuse was one of the main questions asked of jurors during the selection process, and if the juror was honest about his experience then it’s unlikely that a new trial will be held.
However, if David lied about his experience, it could well work out for Maxwell.
The question is…would any sane jury ever come to a different conclusion?