Ghislaine Maxwell denied a retrial  

A New York judge has denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s request for a retrial on sex trafficking charges, after it emerged that one of the jurors had been sexually abused – but failed to disclose it.

Maxwell, 60, was convicted in December of grooming and trafficking underage girls for her ex-boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein. 

Days after her conviction, Maxwell’s attorneys requested a new trial because ‘Juror 50’, referred to as Scotty David, told newspapers that he had been sexually abused as a child, but had not disclosed the information during jury selection, as required.

He also told reporters that he used his experience to help sway fellow jurors who were skeptical of certain victims’ testimony.

On Friday, Maxwell’s lawyer, Bobbi Sternheim, wrote to Judge Alison Nathan, asking her to delay her ruling on whether the British socialite will be granted a new criminal trial because of a pending TV interview with Juror 50. 

He spoke to a crew for Paramount Plus’s documentary series ‘Ghislaine – Partner in Crime’. The series is yet to air, and no date has been set. 

Nathan refused to delay her decision, and denied a retrial – setting a date for Maxwell’s sentencing for June 28. 

Maxwell (pictured in a court sketch during her trial) was convicted in December of recruiting and trafficking underage girls for the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and is facing up to 65 years in jail at her sentencing in June

Scotty David, a juror in the trial of Maxwell, failed to disclose on the juror questionnaire that he had been sexually abused as a child. He was ordered to explain himself before Judge Alison Nathan on March 8, and is pictured arriving at court

In an opinion certain to trigger a higher court appeal, Nathan said the juror’s failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate.

The judge also concluded the juror ‘harbored no bias toward the defendant and could serve as a fair and impartial juror.’

But Nathan, explaining why she denied the retrial, wrote that the juror’s claims that he remained impartial toward Maxwell rang true.

When questioned about it, he answered ‘frankly and honestly, even when the answers he gave were the cause of personal embarrassment and regret,’ she said, in her 40-page decision.   

‘The court finds Juror 50 testified credibly at the hearing,’ Nathan wrote. 

‘There are many reasons for that finding. He appeared to testify frankly and honestly, even when the answers he gave were the cause of personal embarrassment and regret. 

‘His incentive at the hearing was to testify truthfully or face criminal perjury charges.’

Nathan added: ‘His tone, demeanor and responsiveness gave no indication of false testimony. The court thus credits his testimony that he was distracted as he filled out the questionnaire and ‘skimmed way too fast’, leading him to misunderstand some of the questions.

‘The court further finds that Juror 50 was not biased and would not have been stricken for cause even if he had answered each question on the questionnaire accurately.’ 

Nathan wrote that David was not inherently biased because of his background. 

‘To imply or infer that Juror 50 was biased – simply because he was himself a victim of sexual abuse in a trial related to sexual abuse and sex trafficking, and despite his own credible testimony under the penalty of perjury, establishing that he could be an even-handed and impartial juror – would be tantamount to concluding that an individual with a history of sexual abuse can never serve as a fair and impartial juror in such a trial,’ Nathan wrote.

‘That is not the law, nor should it be.

‘In sum, the court concludes that the evidence in the record does not support the finding that Juror 50 was biased. Juror 50’s sworn testimony did not reveal actual partiality. And Juror 50 was not impliedly or inferably biased,’ Nathan said in her ruling. ‘He was neither a victim nor otherwise involved in the actual crimes. Nor does he have any sort of relationship with any of the parties or case participants.’

‘His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate,’ Nathan continued. 

‘The court further concludes that Juror 50 harbored no bias toward the defendant and could serve as a fair and impartial juror.’ 

David, one of the 12 men and women who convicted Ghislaine Maxwell on five of the six counts of sex trafficking in December, revealed he had told fellow jurors he was a victim of sexual abuse during deliberations

The British heiress, during her trial, was described by prosecutors as a serial predator who preyed on young, vulnerable girls and lured them for Epstein, a multimillionaire pedophile to sexually abuse.

Epstein died in jail in Manhattan in August 2019, while awaiting trial. 

Maxwell’s lawyers argued that she was being tried for his crimes, and insisted she had no idea of his depravity. 

The jury disagreed, however, and Maxwell was convicted on five of six counts after a month-long trial where four of her accusers testified.

In interviews immediately after the trial, including with DailyMail.com, David said that telling the other jury members about his own abuse was a turning point in their deliberations and the room fell ‘silent’.

David, speaking to Paramount, said: ‘Some jurors did have serious credibility issues with some of the victims.

‘Just because some memories are fuzzy doesn’t mean they are not telling the truth.’ 

The trailer features him adding: ‘The second I left the courtroom, I’m walking down the stairs of the courthouse – I lost it. I couldn’t contain my tears.’ 

The 35-year-old executive assistant, speaking to multiple outlets after the trial, explained to them that in his own case he could remember some details but not everything – a key point of contention in the case.

David said: ‘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.’

In his interviews, David also described how in vivid detail serving on the jury of six men and six women which took 40 hours to convict Maxwell.

David said that at one point he ‘locked eyes’ with Maxwell from his third row seat in the jury box.

He said: ‘There were times when it felt like she was staring right at me and we would lock eyes…it didn’t feel real’.

David said that after hearing all the evidence he was convinced of Maxwell’s guilt.

He said: ‘After all I’ve learned, she’s just as guilty as Epstein. I don’t want to call her a monster, but a predator is the right word.

A bruised Ghislaine Maxwell is seen in this photo of her alleged mistreatment in prison

‘She knew what was happening. She knew what Epstein was doing and she allowed it to happen. She participated in getting these girls comfortable so that he could have his way with them’. 

David said he went into the trial firmly believing that Maxwell was ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and viewing the victims with a skeptical eye.

But, he said, ‘After all I’ve learned, she’s just as guilty as Epstein. I don’t want to call her a monster, but a predator is the right word.  

‘She knew what was happening. She knew what Epstein was doing and she allowed it to happen. She participated in getting these girls comfortable so that he could have his way with them.

‘And, to me, them returning repeatedly for the money has nothing to do with anything because these girls were minors, and it doesn’t matter what incentivized them. It matters what happened to them.’    

After David’s interviews, Maxwell’s legal team immediately filed for a retrial. 

Maxwell’s lawyers have said the errors – which David claimed was an ‘honest mistake’ after he ‘flew through’ the question sheet – are grounds for a retrial. 

In March Judge Alison Nathan, who presided over the case, hauled David back to her court in New York to explain why he did not answers truthfully on three questions on his jury questionnaire. 

During the March 8 hearing, David told the judge that he was distracted when he quickly filled out the form used to screen prospective jurors. 

He said he ‘skimmed’ the questionnaire and incorrectly answered three questions, calling it ‘one of the biggest mistakes I have ever made.’ 

A chastened David said that he ‘never thought’ he would get chosen to be on the jury and that he had been distracted during the process because he was thinking about a recent breakup with his ex partner.

David only agreed to testify after Judge Nathan gave him immunity under a deal with prosecutors because he initially threatened to refuse to answer questions.

Describing how he filled out the questionnaire, David said: ‘I had been sitting there for three hours. I didn’t have my phone, I didn’t have a book, I was sitting there twiddling my thumbs thinking about a break up that had just happened’, adding that it was a few weeks prior.’ 

David added that he did not ‘set out to be on this jury’, but admitted that he thought to himself: ‘If I’m going to serve jury duty it might as well be something interesting’.

After the hearing Judge Nathan has requested briefing documents from Maxwell’s lawyers and prosecutors to determine whether to request a new trial.

Prosecutors acknowledged in court filings that David failed to disclose his own history as a victim of abuse but have argued that the error didn’t prevent Maxwell from receiving a fair trial.

Judge Alison Nathan, who presided over the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, questioned the juror over the answers he submitted during the jury selection process, at a public court hearing on March 8 (pictured)

During the March 8 hearing, David told the judge that he was distracted when he quickly filled out the form used to screen prospective jurors

Prosecutors have argued that David, seen above leaving federal court, last week, made an ‘honest mistake’ when filling out the questionnaire 

Maxwell’s lawyers argued that testimony during the post-trial hearing showed that because of his experiences, the juror saw himself as an advocate for the victims, not ‘a neutral arbiter of the facts. 

Attorney Bobbi Sternheim wrote scathingly that David’s testimony was ‘tortured and thoroughly unbelievable.’  

She claimed his responses ‘alternated between inconsistent, implausible, and contradictory, and at all times lacked credibility’ adding they were ‘self-serving and not believable.’

The idea that nobody would find out about his abuse – as David claimed, citing the fact he didn’t use his last name to the media – was ‘utterly implausible.’

The defense attorney also pointed to the series of media interviews in which David revealed the abuse and how it influenced his deliberations. 

The juror ‘reveled in the attention’ he received as a member of the jury and ‘was looking to soak up his 15 minutes of fame’ by talking to the media – including one interview with the DailyMail.com – Maxwell’s lawyers argued. 

Sternheim wrote, ‘If there is one thing we learned from Juror 50 (David) at the hearing, it is this: he should never have been a member of this jury.’ 

She added that the abuse David suffered was ‘remarkably similar’ to that of Maxwell’s victims in the trial and would have formed the basis for a challenge during jury selection. 

David ‘was not capable of setting his experiences aside and impartially deciding the case solely on the evidence at trial,’ she continued. 

‘Excusing Juror 50’s false answers because he believes his concealed history of sexual abuse did not affect his ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror does not satisfy the appearance of justice,’ the filing stated. ‘Only a new trial would.’  

In their filing, prosecutors said that during his hour-long grilling by Judge Nathan, David ‘credibly explained how he came to make unintentional mistakes.’

‘It is crystal clear that the defendant received a fair trial,’ the prosecutors wrote. 

‘Juror 50’s sworn testimony at the hearing made evident that he did not deliberately lie in completing the questionnaire, but that he instead made an honest mistake.’

They also praised the juror for being ‘candid’ and said that ‘jurors cannot be held to the standard of trained lawyers.’

Prosecutors said there was a good reason why David didn’t tick yes when asked in the questionnaire if he was the victim of a crime.

They wrote: ‘Lay persons often may not think of themselves as victims of a crime even where lawyers and judges would.’ 

Earlier this month, the juror testified about his answers on the questionnaire after Nathan granted him immunity from prosecution.

He repeatedly expressed regret as the judge asked him dozens of questions about why he didn’t reveal repeated incidents of sexual abuse by two people at age nine and 10. 

‘This is one of the biggest mistakes I’ve ever made in my life,’ he told the judge.

‘I flew through the questions,’ he said, adding that he was ‘super distracted’ by nearby conversations and the movements of other prospective jurors who dropped off their completed questionnaires just a few feet from him.

All potential jurors in the case had been asked to fill out a screening form in early November that asked: ‘Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)’

The juror checked ‘No.’ 

The juror said in the interviews he didn’t remember being asked that question, which was No. 48 on the form.