Document 58

Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page1 of 221 22-1426-cr United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, -v- GHISLAINE MAXWELL, AKA Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK APPENDIX Volume 2 of 2 (Pages A-205 to A-421) ARTHUR L. AIDALA DIANA FABI SAMSON JOHN M. LEVENTHAL AIDALA BERTUNA & KAMINS PC Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant 546 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor New York, New York 10036 (212) 486-0011 DOJ-OGR-00020827 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 58 Filed 05/25/21 USDSPage 1 of 1 DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 5/25/2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -v- Michael Thomas Defendant(s). -----------------------------X CONSENT TO PROCEED BY VIDEOCONFERENCE 19-CR-830 (AT) (_) Defendant Michael Thomas hereby voluntarily consents to participate in the following proceeding via videoconferencing: Initial Appearance/Appointment of Counsel Arraignment (If on Felony Information, Defendant Must Sign Separate Waiver of Indictment Form) Preliminary Hearing on Felony Complaint Bail/Revocation/Detention Hearing X Status and/or Scheduling Conference Misdemeanor Plea/Trial/Sentence Defendant's Signature (Judge may obtain verbal consent on Record and Sign for Defendant) Michael Thomas Print Defendant's Name Montell Figgins Defense Counsel's Signature Montell Figgins Print Defense Counsel's Name This proceeding was conducted by reliable videoconferencing technology. 5/25/2021 Date U.S. District Judge/U.S. Magistrate Judge DOJ-OGR-00022134 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page2 of 221 i TABLE OF CONTENTS United States District Court Docket Entries.................... A-1 Superseding Indictment, filed March 29, 2021................ A-114 Opinion and Order of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated April 16, 2021 ....................... A-138 Omnibus Memorandum of Ghislaine Maxwell in Support of Her Supplemental Pretrial Motions Relating to S2 Superseding Indictment, dated May 7, 2021 (Omitted herein) ....................... Exhibit B to Maxwell Memorandum - Non-Prosecution Agreement and Addendum, dated October 30, 2007....................... A-172 Opinion and Order of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated August 13, 2021 ....................... A-188 Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings held the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated December 20, 2021 ....................... A-202 Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings held the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021 ....................... A-207 Letter from Christian R. Everdell to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated December 27, 2021 ....... A-223 Excerpt from Transcript of Proceedings held the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated December 28, 2021 ....................... A-230 Excerpt from Order of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated February 4, 2022....................... A-238 DOJ-OGR-00020828 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page3 of 221 ii Page Order of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated February 24, 2022............................ A-239 The Government's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion for a New Trial, filed February 24, 2022 (Omitted herein) Exhibit A to Government Memorandum - Independent Online Article "Ghislaine Maxwell Juror Breaks Silence to The Independent: 'This Verdict is for All the Victims'", published January 5, 2022............................ A-242 Exhibit B to Government Memorandum - DailyMail Online Article "Exclusive: 'Ghislaine was a Predator as Guilty as Epstein': Maxwell Juror Describes Moment he 'locked eyes' with Sex Trafficker and Reveals his Own Abuse Ordeal", published January 5, 2022............................ A-248 Exhibit C to Government Memorandum - Reuters Online Article "Some Ghislaine Maxwell Jurors Initially Doubted Accusers, Juror Says", published January 5, 2022 ............................ A-260 Transcript of Juror 50 Hearing held before the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated March 8, 2022 A-264 Exhibit 1 to Hearing Transcript - Questionnaire Form of Juror 50, dated March 8, 2022............................ A-289 Opinion and Order of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated April 1, 2022 ............................ A-318 Opinion and Order of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, dated April 29, 2022............................ A-358 DOJ-OGR-00020829 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page4 of 221 iii Page Excerpt from Transcript of Sentencing, dated June 28, 2022....................... A-403 Notice of Appeal, dated July 7, 2022........................ A-420 DOJ-OGR-00020830 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page5 of 221 A-205 3037 LCKVMAX8 Charge 1 accident, mistake, or some innocent reason. 2 It is the defendant's intent that matters here. If 3 the government establishes each of the elements of the crime 4 beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant is guilty of this 5 charge whether or not the individual agreed or consented to 6 cross state lines. 7 Instruction No. 21. Count Four. Transportation of an 8 individual under the age of 17 to engage in illegal sexual 9 activity. Second element. 10 The second element of Count Four which the government 11 must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Ms. Maxwell 12 knowingly transported Jane in interstate commerce with the 13 intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person 14 can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York 15 law. 16 Like Count Two, Count Four alleges sexual activity for 17 which an individual could be charged with a violation of New 18 York Penal Law, Section 130.55, sexual abuse in the third 19 degree. I've already instructed you regarding that crime, and 20 those instructions apply equally here. 21 In order to establish this element, it's not necessary 22 for the government to prove that the illegal sexual activity 23 was Ms. Maxwell's sole purpose for transporting Jane across 24 state lines. A person may have several different purposes or 25 motives for such conduct, and each may prompt in varying degree SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020831 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page6 of 221 A-206 LCKVMAX8 Charge 3038 1 the person's actions. 2 The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, 3 however, that a significant or motivating purpose of Jane's 4 travel across state lines was that she would engage in illegal 5 sexual activity; in other words, the illegal sexual activity 6 must not have been merely incidental to the trip. 7 Instruction No. 22. Count Four. Transportation of an 8 individual under the age of 17 to engage in illegal sexual 9 activity. Third element. 10 The third element of Count Four which the government 11 must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that Ms. Maxwell knew 12 that Jane was less than 17 years old at the time of the acts 13 alleged in Count Four of the indictment. 14 Instruction No. 23. Counts Two and Four. Failure to 15 accomplish intended activity is immaterial. 16 Now, with respect to Counts Two and Four, it is not a 17 defense that the sexual activity which may have been intended 18 by the defendant was not accomplished. In other words, it's 19 not necessary for the government to prove that anyone, in fact, 20 engaged in any sexual activity for which any person can be 21 charged with a criminal offense with the individual after she 22 was enticed for Count Two or transported for Count Four across 23 state lines. It is enough if the defendant has the requisite 24 intent at the time of the enticement or transportation. 25 Instruction No. 24. Count Six. Sex trafficking of an SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020832 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page7 of 221 A-207 LCRVMAXT 3126 1 mind of their own. Because last week the Court invited them to 2 sit the extra day and they declined that. So an inquiry may be 3 appropriate, but I don't think telling them what they should do 4 is necessarily the right thing to do. 5 THE COURT: Well, I have told them previously that 6 they are here till at least 5. I think the question is 7 whether, in light of the circumstances we find ourselves, we 8 should encourage longer, if it's available to them. But you 9 think about it. I'll hear from you. I'm not intending to do 10 anything just yet. I presume we will hear from them as to this 11 evening, but think about the indication of at least some 12 extension of hours tomorrow if they have not completed the 13 task. 14 All right? Thank you. 15 (Recess pending verdict) 16 THE COURT: I have a note. 17 Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the 18 transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to 19 New Mexico, where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in 20 sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second 21 element? 22 I'm going to let you take a -- if you want to just 23 take a look at the note. Counsel, you're welcome to take a 24 photo of it, if that helps. 25 MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020833 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page8 of 221 A-208 LCRVMAXT 3127 1 THE COURT: Mark the note as Court Exhibit 14. 2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: 15. 3 THE COURT: 15. 4 Counsel, soon I'll look for your proposals. 5 Another note from the jury. This one says: We would 6 like to end deliberations at 5 p.m. today. 7 So we'll take up extending deliberations after we 8 resolve the response to this question. 9 (Counsel conferred) 10 THE COURT: All right. Let me get a proposal. 11 MR. EVERDELL: Happy to talk, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Counsel, are you ready? 13 MS. MOE: I apologize, your Honor. Can we just have 14 one more moment to confer with our supervisor? 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MS. MOE: Thank you. 17 (Counsel conferred) 18 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. 19 Apologies for the delay. 20 THE COURT: Defense counsel, are you ready? 21 MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Moe. 23 MS. MOE: Your Honor, our proposal would be to refer 24 the jurors to instruction number 21 on page 28 of the Court's 25 instructions, which pertains to comprehensive instruction with SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020834 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page9 of 221 A-209 3128 LCRVMAXT 1 respect to the second element. Beyond that, we're not able to 2 parse the question because we find it confusing; so we think 3 the safest course is to refer the jurors to the comprehensive 4 instruction with respect to the second element. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell. 6 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the answer to this 7 question is no, and I'll tell you the rationale for this. 8 As to the jurors' note, they've clearly separated out 9 in their minds the flight to New Mexico versus the flight back 10 from New Mexico. And in their minds, there still is a 11 question, it would seem, that the flight -- whatever the 12 purpose of the flight to New Mexico was, whether it was for 13 illicit sexual activity or not, that is different from the 14 purpose of the flight back from New Mexico. And they are 15 asking can she be found guilty solely on if there's some aiding 16 and abetting, some helping of that flight from New Mexico, 17 which presumably the flight home they're saying. 18 THE COURT: So the flight from New Mexico to where? 19 MR. EVERDELL: Well, there is no record of a flight 20 from New Mexico. But what they are saying, I think, in this 21 note is they are separating out in their minds the flight to 22 New Mexico versus whatever flight she may have taken from New 23 Mexico. And I would say based on the instructions in the 24 Court's instructions which the government pointed to, there has 25 to be -- the significant or motivating purpose of the travel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020835 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 10 of 221 A-210 3129 LCRVMAXT 1 across state lines has to be that Jane engaged in illicit 2 sexual activity. There is no significant or motivating purpose 3 of a return trip where Mr. Epstein wasn't present; it's just a 4 return trip from New Mexico. That would not be a significant 5 or motivating purpose. She is just presumably going home, but 6 is not for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity. 7 The testimony, if we are to believe it, is that she 8 went to New Mexico for some purpose to engage in sexual 9 activity, that's if you believe Jane's testimony. But 10 returning from there is not that purpose. Returning is 11 returning, or it's going somewhere else; it's going somewhere 12 away from where -- at least in the record, the evidence in the 13 record, if there is any -- Epstein was presumably in New 14 Mexico. This is her leaving New Mexico. So I don't think that 15 qualifies as a significant or motivating purpose. That travel 16 across state lines is for some other purpose. 17 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I don't believe this note is 18 that clear about what flight we're talking about. The note 19 begins by talking about an unspecified return flight, and then 20 it turns to talking about a flight to New Mexico. Then there's 21 a modifying clause about intent. It is unclear which of the 22 two flights we are now modifying. 23 I think the safest course here is to refer the jury to 24 the elements of the crime. I think guessing at what flight 25 they may be talking about is sort of beyond the reach of this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020836 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page11 of 221 A-211 3130 LCRVMAXT 1 question because they haven't identified a flight here. 2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think they've been fairly 3 clear. They say: If the defendant aided in the transportation 4 of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico. The 5 only evidence we have of a flight to New Mexico with Jane is 6 the one in the flight logs, and it is a flight to New Mexico. 7 And so the return flight would be some other flight besides the 8 flight to New Mexico. 9 She is also alleged that -- and to be honest, I think 10 it was a little unclear what may have happened in New Mexico 11 based on her testimony; but if there was any illegal sexual 12 conduct, the flight to New Mexico, this is what they are 13 debating, because they say, but not the flight to New Mexico, 14 where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity. 15 Okay. So it seems that the jury is deliberating or at 16 least trying to decide whether the flight to New Mexico was for 17 the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. And they 18 are confused that the return flight that happens after that, 19 could that be the basis alone for a conviction on Count Four. 20 Answer is no, because that return flight is not for the purpose 21 of illegal sexual activity. 22 MS. MOE: Your Honor, at the very least, the answer to 23 this can't be no, because a jury could infer intent to engage 24 in sexual conduct and the return of a flight in aiding and 25 abetting that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020837 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 12 of 221 A-212 3131 LCRVMAXT 1 We can't tell which flight we're talking about, which 2 leg of a potentially multi-leg trip we're talking about. And 3 so I think here, again, the Court gave a thorough instruction 4 about this particular element. Because we can't tell which set 5 of facts they are asking about, I think the proper course here 6 is to refer the jury to the particulars with respect to this 7 element. 8 THE COURT: It's difficult to know and to have in my 9 head, based on the articulation of the question, as well as the 10 testimony, exactly what they are referring to. I don't know. 11 So I am inclined to follow the government's suggestion 12 here and to say, I can't provide an additional response to your 13 question other than to consider carefully the instructions as 14 to -- I mean, I could either point them to all of the count or 15 specifically to the second element, since that's what they're 16 asking about. 17 MR. EVERDELL: If we're going to just refer them to 18 certain language, I think we refer them to the language in the 19 last paragraph. 20 THE COURT: Page? 21 MR. EVERDELL: Page 28, instruction number 21, lines 22 14 through 17. 23 MS. MOE: Your Honor, those particular lines don't 24 appear to be what the jury is asking about. I recognize that 25 the note refers to Count Four and the second element, but the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020838 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page13 of 221 A-213 3132 LCRVMAXT 1 entire note seems to be about transportation of some kind. And 2 so we would propose just referring them to the instruction in 3 its entirety. 4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I don't find this note 5 confusing. And I think simply saying it's confusing -- 6 THE COURT: Well, I find it confusing. For example, I 7 don't know if this is a question about aiding and abetting. I 8 don't know. 9 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think this is pretty -- I 10 think this is a question about whether you can hold her 11 accountable for a return flight, if you believe that she had 12 something to do with arranging that return flight from New 13 Mexico; whereas the first flight to New Mexico may have been -- 14 at least there's some testimony to consider about whether that 15 was for the purpose of illegal sexual activity. It was not 16 true of the return flight, the flight back, wherever she was 17 going, home, somewhere else, somewhere away from Mr. Epstein. 18 I think they are asking, Can we consider if Ms. 19 Maxwell had anything to do with that flight, arranging of that 20 flight, whether she can be convicted, because it's on the 21 return trip from an area where Jane claims she was involved in 22 sexual abuse. 23 THE COURT: But it says where/if the intent was to 24 engage -- for Jane to engage in sexual activity. 25 MR. EVERDELL: Right. They are saying with a flight SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020839 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page14 of 221 A-214 3133 LCRVMAXT 1 to New Mexico, where/if there was an intent for Jane to engage 2 in sexual activity. So there is still an open question in 3 their minds about whether the flight to New Mexico, that 4 travel, was for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual 5 activity. 6 But they are now considering whether the flight out of 7 New Mexico, if Ms. Maxwell had any -- did anything to do with 8 that flight, with arranging that flight, could we convict her 9 on that count alone. Because there is no, I think, evidence 10 that she arranged the flight going to New Mexico; instead, they 11 are considering now whether there's any evidence that she may 12 have arranged the flight out of New Mexico. And is that enough 13 to provide a conviction on Count Two? And I think the answer 14 to that is pretty clearly no -- I'm sorry, Count Four I should 15 have said, not Count Two. Because there's no evidence of that. 16 And there is also -- there is no -- in the 17 instructions themselves, that would not be a significant or 18 motivating purpose for that travel across state lines. That 19 would simply be for her to return home. That's not travel for 20 the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. 21 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think this colloquy 22 illustrates how confusing the note is. We are now guessing at 23 what hypothetical facts the jury is talking about; and then 24 guessing hypothetically what their legal question is on top of 25 that. And I think we're compounding guesswork, what this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020840 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page15 of 221 A-215 3134 LCRVMAXT 1 question is about. And so the question is about the element; 2 the charge is about that particular element. I think more 3 guesswork here makes this more confusing and not less 4 confusing. I think, as the Court pointed out, some aspects of 5 this note are about aiding and abetting. And so even referring 6 the jury just to instruction number 21 leaves out that aspect 7 of the jury's deliberations and their determination on this 8 particular issue. And so we think the safest course is to 9 provide the jury with applicable law in this area, and they can 10 find the facts as they see fit and as they apply to these 11 particular instructions. 12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I don't think this is a 13 question about aid and abetting, broadly speaking. I think 14 they are talking about the flights to and from New Mexico. I 15 think that much is pretty clear from the note. And whether or 16 not Ms. Maxwell had anything to do with arranging that 17 travel -- 18 THE COURT: But your legal contention is she can't be 19 found guilty of this count unless the jury concludes that she 20 aided in the transportation to New Mexico. 21 That's not legally accurate, is it? 22 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the instruction itself says 23 it has to be a significant or motivating purpose for the travel 24 across state lines. 25 THE COURT: Right. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020841 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 16 of 221 A-216 3135 LCRVMAXT 1 MR. EVERDELL: Right? 2 The travel back to a place where she is presumably not engaging in illicit sexual activity, that is not a significant or motivating purpose for that travel. 3 THE COURT: You didn't answer my question. 4 MR. EVERDELL: Maybe I'm confused by the question, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: To be found guilty on this count, must the jury conclude that she aided in the transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico? 6 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, may I interject myself into this conversation? 7 THE COURT: If you answer the question, I would value it. 8 MS. MENNINGER: I will. 9 It has to be a place for which the travel was a significant or motivating purpose for illegal sexual activity. 10 In this hypothetical that they've given in this question, they have a comma in two places. The first place they have a comma is after the return flight, comma, but not the flight to New Mexico, where the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, comma. So they have excluded out where they're hypothetically claiming that the flight to New Mexico was the place for which the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020842 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page17 of 221 A-217 3136 LCRVMAXT 1 THE COURT: Wow. 2 MS. MENNINGER: And they are asking, Can we find her 3 responsible for the return flight, but not that flight to New 4 Mexico, where the intent was to engage in sexual activity. 5 That's why I think they have written it with the commas as they 6 are. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MS. MENNINGER: So they have to be directed -- 9 THE COURT: Let me try again. Can I get a yes or a no 10 to my question? Is it your legal position that the jury must 11 conclude, in order to convict on this count, that the defendant 12 had to aid in the transportation of the flight to New Mexico? 13 MS. MENNINGER: I don't believe that -- no, no, it is 14 not my contention. 15 THE COURT: Thank you. 16 MS. MENNINGER: And the reason is the indictment does 17 not specify New Mexico. It could be a flight to New York, for 18 example. It could be a flight to New Mexico. It could be any 19 place, the purpose for which was to engage in illegal sexual 20 activity. So it doesn't have to be to New Mexico. 21 THE COURT: I agree with that. 22 This is why it's difficult to parse the question 23 without assuming a variety of meanings, and I'm trying to track 24 your comma argument. 25 MS. MENNINGER: Had they placed the comma after New SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020843 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page18 of 221 A-218 3137 LCRVMAXT 1 Mexico rather than the place where they did put the comma, then 2 that would have told us, can't she be responsible for aiding in 3 the transportation of the return flight, comma, but not the 4 flight to New Mexico, comma. That would then put the where/if 5 the intent was -- 6 THE COURT: That would be an entirely different 7 meaning to the question. 8 MS. MENNINGER: I think so. 9 THE COURT: No, I agree. What I don't know is I don't 10 know what they meant and I don't know how much weight to put on 11 that comma placement; because, as you've noted, that precise 12 sentence without that comma has an entirely different meaning. 13 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 14 15 And I think at the point at which we're parsing jury 16 notes like statutes this finely, I think it illustrates the 17 point that this note is confusing; that we're not sure what the 18 jury is asking about either factually or legally. 19 The question is about the second element; and so we 20 think the proper course is to refer the jury to those 21 particular instructions. And the jury is free to send a 22 clarifying note, if they wish to do so. But I think when we 23 are parsing commas this finely in a note that is unclear, it's 24 unclear which clauses are modifying which clauses, or which 25 flights we're even talking about, I think it's far too 26 confusing to give simple answers here. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020844 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page19 of 221 A-219 3138 LCRVMAXT 1 THE COURT: I can't answer this ambiguous question no. 2 I don't know that the answer is no, even with the ambiguity; 3 because I don't know if what they have in mind is an aiding and 4 abetting question, which we haven't discussed yet. 5 MS. MENNINGER: They never used the word "abet." 6 THE COURT: That's true. I won't assume that's the 7 question for purposes of the answer, but I also don't assume 8 the meaning that you've put on it for purposes of the answer. 9 So the only solution here is to say, I direct you to consider 10 the full instruction on Element 2 of Count Four on page 28. 11 MS. MENNINGER: Our request would be to emphasize the 12 portion of that that talks about the purpose of the travel. 13 Because they have highlighted the purpose of the travel in 14 their question. And the way I read it is certainly that that's 15 their question. If they don't have evidence that the intent on 16 the return flight was for purposes of sexual activity, then I 17 do think the answer, as Mr. Everdell said is, no, they can't 18 convict. 19 MS. STERNHEIM: May I have a moment? 20 (Counsel conferred) 21 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to raise another 22 issue, but I think we have to, given the note itself. 23 One moment. Sorry. The photograph on the phone keeps 24 disappearing. 25 We're talking about they are referring to Count Four, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020845 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 20 of 221 A-220 3139 LCRVMAXT 1 which is the substantive transportation count, which, as we 2 know, has to deal with the violation of New York law. And they 3 are talking about flights to New Mexico; and can she be found 4 guilty on the second element of Count Four regarding these 5 flights to New Mexico. 6 So I think we may have to respond to the jury on that 7 score as well, which is the fact that they have to be 8 considering New York events for Count Four, rather than -- or 9 violations of New York law, which wouldn't occur in New Mexico 10 for there to be a conviction on Count Four. 11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think that's exactly why we 12 proposed directing the jurors to the entirety of the 13 instruction, which says just that. The second paragraph of 14 that same instruction reminds the jury, as the instruction does 15 throughout, that we're talking about New York Penal Law, 16 Section 130.55. And so I think our proposal remains the same 17 that they be referred to the entirety of the instruction, which 18 includes that language, among other aspects of this particular 19 element. 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, may I be heard for a moment? 22 THE COURT: Sure. 23 MS. STERNHEIM: I think the fact that the jury has 24 mentioned New Mexico regarding a count that pertains to New 25 York is not just cleared up by referring them to the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020846 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 21 of 221 A-221 3140 LCRVMAXT 1 instruction. Clearly they are making an error concerning which 2 state begins with "New." And I suggest that if the Court 3 wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up 4 the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law, 5 not New Mexico law. 6 THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them 7 to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make 8 clear. 9 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 10 11 The only illegal sexual activity identified in the 12 entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There 13 cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular 14 charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as 15 well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New 16 Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly 17 that reason. 18 MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence 19 about how there can be no possible confusion -- 20 THE COURT: This conversation is stopping. 21 My decision is to refer them back to this charge, 22 because it is a proper instruction on the second element to 23 Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too 24 difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking. 25 So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them 26 back to the count. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020847 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 22 of 221 A-222 LCRVMAXT 3141 1 So I'll take any requests beyond simply saying, I 2 received your note. I refer you to instruction number 21 on 3 page 28. Please consider carefully the full instruction. 4 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell? 6 MR. EVERDELL: That's fine, your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Okay. I'll do that. And then -- well, 8 let me write it, and then we'll send it back, and then we'll 9 discuss -- because we have to bring them in to dismiss them. 10 So I received your note. I refer you to instruction 11 number 21 on page 28. Please consider the entirety of the 12 instruction. 13 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. EVERDELL: Without waiving our prior objection. 16 THE COURT: Understood. 17 All right. While Ms. Williams is handing that to the 18 CSO, for extending deliberation times going forward. 19 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 20 We've considered the matter. And the government's 21 view is that is within the Court's discretion certainly to set 22 a schedule for jury deliberations. Given the circumstances, we 23 agree that it's prudent to advise the jury that, barring any 24 scheduling complications, they should expect an extended day 25 tomorrow. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020848 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 30 of 221 A-230 3147 LCSCMAXT 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 -------------------------------x 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 5 v. 6 GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 7 Defendant. 8 -------------------------------x Jury Trial 9 New York, N.Y. 10 December 28, 2021 11 9:49 a.m. 12 Before: 13 HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, 14 District Judge 15 APPEARANCES 16 DAMIAN WILLIAMS 17 United States Attorney for the 18 Southern District of New York 19 BY: MAURENE COMEY 20 ALISON MOE 21 LARA POMERANTZ 22 ANDREW ROHRBACH 23 Assistant United States Attorneys 24 HADDON MORGAN AND FOREMAN 25 Attorneys for Defendant 26 BY: JEFFREY S. PAGLIUCA 27 LAURA A. MENNINGER 28 -and- 29 BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 30 -and- 31 COHEN & GRESSER 32 BY: CHRISTIAN R. EVERDELL 33 Also Present: Amanda Young, FBI 34 Paul Byrne, NYPD 35 Sunny Drescher, 36 Paralegal, U.S. Attorney's Office 37 Ann Lundberg, 38 Paralegal, Haddon Morgan and Foreman 39 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 40 (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page31 of 221 A-231 3148 LCSCMAXT (Jury not present) THE COURT: I received -- I think it was filed in the wee hours, I didn't receive it until this morning, the defense's followup letter taking a slightly different approach to the jury's last note than what was argued in court. I haven't heard from the government. MS. MOE: I just noticed that the door to the jury room is open. THE COURT: Thank you. To be clear, the jury is not there. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I meant the door to the area that leads to the jury room Just wanted to be cautious. THE COURT: Thank you. Appreciate that. MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. With respect to the defendant's letter, this is essentially the same argument that the defense advanced yesterday, which the Court carefully considered and rejected. Nothing has changed between then and now. In particular, the defense's letter identifies no error in the instruction the Court referred the jury to nor could they. It was a correct legal instruction when the Court instructed the jury last week, it was a correct legal instruction when the Court referred the jury to it yesterday afternoon, and that it remains true. It was a thorough and carefully considered instruction on the legal elements and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020857 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 32 of 221 A-232 3149 LCSCMAXT 1 there can be no error in referring the jury to a correct legal instruction. And so no relief is appropriate here. 2 3 At bottom your Honor, the jury asked a question and nothing more. There is no reason to speculate about what the jury might be concluding. The jury has been accurately instructed on the law and that's all that's required here. 4 5 Going beyond that to speculate about the jury's deliberations and compound speculation upon speculation to send back confusing legal instructions would compound the problem here. 6 7 The simple course is exactly the course the Court took yesterday, which is to refer the jury to a thorough and complete accurate legal instruction. There can't be any dispute that the instructions that the Court has given are accurate, and that's all that's required here. 8 9 THE COURT: I suppose an additional point, just looking at the -- I mean, the defense's new proposed instruction talks about Count Two, which wasn't asked about. 10 11 Also, it has -- so it has three paragraphs. The first one is about Count Two, which wasn't asked about. There is a second paragraph. 12 13 And then the third paragraph I think is just wrong, an intent that Jane engaged in sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis of these elements. 14 15 That would suggest it may have no relevance. This is the same discussion we've had a couple of times, Mr. Everdell. 16 17 Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 33 of 221 A-233 3150 LCSCMAXT 1 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage 2 in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this 3 is the same basic discussion that we've had. So, in addition 4 to my reasoning yesterday, I think the proposal made by the 5 defense is wrong. 6 I continue to not know how to parse the jury's 7 question exactly, other than to know that they are asking about 8 Count Four, the defense's original suggestion to just point to 9 the motivating factor I rejected language or to say no. To say 10 no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand 11 the question well enough to be able to say no. 12 Pointing to just the motivating factor language I 13 think was unhelpful because, really, the point is to remind 14 them of the whole instruction, including that it's a violation 15 of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual 16 activity that they're considering. 17 So, for those reasons, I am in the same place. 18 I did want to make a little bit of an additional 19 record regarding my extending the deliberations by an hour, the 20 instructions that I gave yesterday regarding that slightly 21 extended schedule. 22 I asked the jury to make themselves available to 23 deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour 24 extension of what's largely been our schedule. Although, it 25 was until 6 o'clock, I think, on the first night of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020859 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page34 of 221 A-234 3151 LCSCMAXT deliberations. I made clear that they can let me know through my deputy if this presents a hardship for anyone. No one has so indicated. I also made clear that they can take all the time they need. I extended the deliberations by an hour each day because we are seeing an astronomical spike in the number COVID-positive cases in New York City over the last one to two weeks due to the omicron variant. We are, very simply, at a different place regarding the pandemic than we were only one week ago, and we now face a high and escalating risk that jurors and/or trial participants may need to quarantine, thus disrupting trial and putting at risk our ability to complete this trial. Accordingly, extending deliberations by an hour gives the jury more time each day to continue to engage in its thoughtful deliberations. We will take up later in the day how I will approach the reminder of the week and going forward. I think the same reasoning likely will lead me to talk to the jury at the end of the day about continuing deliberations until a verdict is reached. I'll hear you on that now or later, as you like. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I don't need to be heard on that issue now. If I could, I understand the Court has overruled the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020860 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page35 of 221 A-235 3152 LCSCMAXT 1 request of the letter, but if I could make a brief record on 2 that, it will not take very long. 3 THE COURT: Okay. And so there is the record that you 4 made yesterday at the time the question came. There is the 5 record that you put in the letter this morning that came in 6 late -- early this morning that I reviewed this morning that we 7 just discussed. So, to the extent you're seeking a third bite 8 at the apple, go ahead. 9 MR. EVERDELL: I'm simply looking to fill out the 10 record. I understand it's been rejected by the Court. 11 I think from the defense point of view, I think two 12 things are very clear from this note. One is that the jury is 13 considering whether or not they can convict Ms. Maxwell on the 14 substantive offense in Count Four based solely on events that 15 took place in New Mexico and traveled to and from New Mexico. 16 THE COURT: There are a number of assumptions in that 17 that don't necessarily derive from the meaning of that letter, 18 but I understand that is your position. 19 MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor. 20 And I think the second point is that they are looking 21 at the instructions that they have been given thus far because 22 they reference the second element of Count Four. So they're 23 looking at that instruction and they are unclear, they are 24 confused by those instructions. They are not sure whether or 25 not -- those instructions don't inform them that, in fact, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page36 of 221 A-236 3153 LCSCMAXT 1 conduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from 2 New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a 3 violation of New York law -- 4 THE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a 5 basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong 6 as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to 7 exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction 8 with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe 9 for all of the reasons we've articulated. 10 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we 11 did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of 12 travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the 13 required facts to be proven for those counts. 14 In any event, I think this is a time that calls for a 15 supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has 16 rejected -- 17 THE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect 18 supplemental instruction. 19 MR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction 20 that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft 21 a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they my 22 convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely 23 relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What 24 I am saying is if all they had --which is what I think the note 25 is saying --is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page38 of 221 A-238 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 53 Filed 02/04/22 Page 23 of 30 COURT EXHIBIT # DATE: 12/27/2021 TIME: CASE: US v. Maxwell 20 CR 330 (AJN) Hello Judge Nathan, Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, (in she be found guilty under the second element? Thank #26 DOJ-OGR-00020864 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 42 of 221 A-242 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 615-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 6 News > World > Americas Ghislaine Maxwell juror breaks silence to The Independent: 'This verdict is for all the victims' 'For those who testified, for those who came forward and for those who haven't come forward. I'm glad that Maxwell has been held accountable,' a juror in Maxwell's sex-trafficking trial tells Lucia Osborne-Crowley Wednesday 05 January 2022 10:13 (REUTERS) A juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex-trafficking trial has told The Independent that he voted to find Maxwell guilty of the majority of the charges against her because he believed the stories told by the victims and because he believed the pattern of abuse they all described. DOJ-OGR-00020868 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 44 of 221 A-244 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 615-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 6 The jury room went dead silent when he shared his story, he told The Independent. David believes this helped the jury understand that it's possible that these women were telling the truth. You might forget some things, he said, but the core of a traumatic memory stays with you. There were also questions about why the girls kept going back to Epstein and Maxwell, why they accepted their help. "We are not here to judge these victims," David told The Independent. "We are here to judge whether we believe their stories, but we are not here to judge the decisions they made or didn't make. "We cannot judge what they did or didn't do afterward," he said. "It doesn't change that it happened." David felt that the defence were continually attacking the accusers on the stand, and he said these attempts did little to change his mind. At one point, the accuser testifying under the name "Carolyn" threw her binder of evidence down beside her because she was so distressed by the questioning she was being subjected to. "It just made me feel more compassion for her," David said. The juror said that, ultimately, the jury found that all the victims were credible. The defence team focused strongly on its memory expert, Professor Elizabeth Loftus. Loftus testified about experiments that had been conducted in which researchers had successfully implanted a false memory into the mind of research subjects. In one study, the researchers were able to change a detail of a memory about witnessing a car accident. They were able to convince participants that the scene featured a stop sign rather than a yield sign. But that didn't sway the jury either, David said. DOJ-OGR-00020870 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 45 of 221 A-245 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 615-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 6 "None of that relates to traumatic memory," he said. Loftus said herself that she had never conducted a study on whether these tactics would work with memories of sexual abuse, David recalled. Since the trial, there has been speculation that the fact a juror had been a victim of sexual abuse could be used by Maxwell as grounds for appeal. Speaking separately to MailOnline, David said he could not remember the details of the 50 question pre-trial questionnaire each potential juror was asked about whether they were a victim of sexual abuse or a relative or a friend of a victim, but felt he had answered all questions honestly. David told The Independent that the accusers' testimony was corroborated by a significant amount of evidence. He specifically mentioned Kate - an accuser who testified but was not allowed to be considered for the actual charges because she was over the age of consent in the UK when she was abused - and said her testimony powerfully corroborated the other accusers' stories. "She was able to show us that this was a pattern," David said. "We knew we couldn't use her testimony to convict Maxwell, but she showed the pattern of how those girls were groomed. "She showed us the pattern that happened to all of these girls. "It was about confusing their boundaries," he said. "For Jane, it started with seeing Maxwell topless. For Annie Farmer, it started with Maxwell showing her how to give Epstein a foot massage. "The pattern is that Ghislaine talks to you like she is also a teenager. Then it moves into massage. She tries to make you comfortable, to see what they can get away with. "What she did was wrong." Annie Farmer's story was backed up by her teenage diary, as well as her high school boyfriend. That was important to the jury, he said. Carolyn's story was backed up by Shawn, her ex-boyfriend who testified that he used to drive her to Epstein's Palm Beach mansion. DOJ-OGR-00020871 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page46 of 221 A-246 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 615-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 6 Jane's story was backed up by her high school boyfriend, who remembered being told about Epstein when they were younger. The accuser's stories were backed up by flight logs which placed Jane on at least one flight with Maxwell, David said. Their stories were backed up by Maxwell's "little black book" - an address book found in Epstein's home that listed the names of "masseuses" including Jane and Carolyn. David said the little black book also gave the jurors clues about how Maxwell and Epstein had evaded accountability in the past. There were names of several Palm Beach police officers listed on a first-name basis in that book, David said. "Those girls' names and phone numbers were listed next to the words 'mom' and 'dad'," he said. "Professional masseuses do not need their parents with them." Many speculated that the jury chose to acquit Maxwell on count two because that count related solely to Jane, and that Jane was less credible than other victims. But David told The Independent that wasn't the case. "We simply didn't see enough direct evidence to convict on count two," he said. "It wasn't about not believing Jane." Count two was a substantive charge that required proof that Maxwell "enticed" Jane to travel across state lines. David said there just wasn't any direct evidence for any specific trip that Maxwell took any action to entice Jane to get on those flights. "I personally was willing to find her guilty on count two," he said. "But we all decided in the end that there wasn't enough evidence." David also explained that he was convinced by the closeness of Maxwell and Epstein's relationship and the key role she played in his life. DOJ-OGR-00020872 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 47 of 221 A-247 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 615-1 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 6 "Of course she knew what was going on," he said. The schedule for Maxwell's sentencing hearing has not yet been set. More about: Ghislaine Maxwell Juror Maxwell Victims Join our new commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies 40 Comments DOJ-OGR-00020873 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page48 of 221 A-248 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 58 Filed 12/29/22 Page 48 of 221 EXCLUSIVE: 'Ghislaine was a predator as guilty as Epstein': Maxwell juror describes moment he 'locked eyes' with sex trafficker and reveals his own abuse ordeal Scotty David, a juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, was one of the 12 men and women who convicted Maxwell on five of the six counts of sex-trafficking last week Scotty says he went into the trial firmly believing that Maxwell was 'innocent until proven guilty' but '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' During the trial Scotty, who works in finance, was seated in the third row of the jury box, in the back corner. From his vantage point, he said, he had a vista of the entire court and the 'perfect view' of Maxwell herself Scotty said that Maxwell's manner in court was discussed during deliberations. He said, 'We did discuss that we thought she was a little standoffish and not necessarily cold, more like she was paying attention' Scotty revealed that he was not the only juror to share a story of sexual abuse and that it did not affect his ability to view Maxwell as innocent until proven guilty Scotty is completely satisfied that they reached the right verdict and that, with Maxwell's conviction, justice has been done. He says that he believes she will spend the rest of her life in prison unless a deal is done He said, 'It satisfies me to know that we did our due diligence and that we brought justice for these victims, for these girls who are now women' By LAURA COLLINS CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and DANIEL BATES FOR DAILYMAIL.COM PUBLISHED: 00:26 EST, 5 January 2022 | UPDATED: 09:04 EST, 5 January 2022 792 shares 1.1k View comments A juror in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial has revealed how he viewed her as a 'predator', describing the moment he 'locked eyes' with Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice - and revealed his own child sex abuse ordeal to the jury. Scotty David said he had helped the other members of the jury understand things from a victim's point of view and explained how 'you can't remember all the details' of traumatic memories - this was a crucial line of attack by Maxwell's lawyers who called a 'false memory' expert witness. David also claimed that the five guilty verdicts returned in New York last week, possibly condemning Maxwell to spend the rest of life behind bars, were for 'all the victims'. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 1/16 DOJ-OGR-00020874 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 49 of 221 A-249 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-03305-Makwell Morganthau DailyMail Online EXCLUSIVE: INMATES ARE 'ITCHING TO GET THEIR HANDS ON' CHARLIESE MUTTON'S STEPDAD - BUT FRIEND INSISTS Legal experts said that if David failed to disclose his past experiences before the jury deliberations, Maxwell could have grounds to claim a mistrial and have her convictions quashed. However, the question of whether a potential juror was a victim of sexual abuse or a relative or friend of a victim was asked in the 50-question survey completed by each juror ahead of selection. 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.' Ghislaine Maxwell juror speaks out after guilty verdict Watch the full video https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 2/16 DOJ-OGR-00020875 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page50 of 221 A-250 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-00373 Maxwell Juror says evidence convinced panel predator was 'predator' Scotty, who spoke on condition that only his first and middle names are used, said he went into the trial firmly believing that Maxwell was 'innocent until proven guilty' and viewing the victims with a skeptical eye https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 3/16 DOJ-OGR-00020876 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page51 of 221 A-251 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-00330-MKV Document 58-1 Filed 12/29/20 Predating DailyMail Online ISEMENT https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislain-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 4/16 DOJ-OGR-00020877 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page52 of 221 A-252 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-03301-AT Document 58 Filed 02/28/23 Page 52 of 221 During the trial Scotty, who works in finance, was seated in the third row of the jury box, in the back corner. From his vantage point, he said, he had a vista of the entire court and the 'perfect view' of Maxwell herself. During the trial Scotty, who works in finance, was seated in the third row of the jury box, in the back corner. From his vantage point, he said, he had a vista of the entire court and the 'perfect view' of Maxwell herself. He recalled, 'I could literally see her [at all the time]. There were times when it felt like she was staring right at me and we would lock eyes...it didn't feel real.' 'She was constantly taking notes, and constantly passing post-it notes over to her attorneys especially when they were on cross examination.' At times, he said, 'I felt like she was watching what we were doing because there were times when some jurors, not during when the victims presented their testimony, but when certain other people presented on things that maybe they didn't feel mattered...some people would nod off.' Scotty said that Maxwell's manner in court was discussed during deliberations. He said, 'We did discuss that we thought she was a little standoffish and not necessarily cold, more like she was paying attention.' In an insight that will surely come as a gut blow to Maxwell herself, who reportedly wanted to testify but was advised against it, Scotty revealed that if she had taken the stand, 'it would have shown maybe that she was a little more human.' 'Maybe if she gave her version of the story, who knows, maybe if she gave us a story of how she was manipulated...I don't know. But then that would have been an admission I feel like of guilt.' Jurors were instructed not to draw any inference of guilt or otherwise from Maxwell's decision not to testify and, Scotty said, it was simply set to one side and not discussed during deliberations. Asked if, at any stage, he had experienced any sympathy for Maxwell he said, 'Absolutely. Because this is the rest of her life, right? We were deciding what happens based off the evidence provided.' 'We took that very seriously because we took at as, this could be on our sister, our sister could be on trial here. We have to really comb through the evidence and make sure we have enough proof to say that she's either guilty or not.' David told The Independent he found all the accusers to be credible, despite the defense's attacks on their stories and memories. How Maxwell could claim a mistrial after juror reveals he was victim of child sex abuse and shared his experience with the jury Ghislainne Maxwell could lodge a claim of mistrial after it emerged one of the jurors who convicted her was a victim of child sex abuse. Scotty David said he had helped the other members of the jury understand things from a victim's point of view. He also claimed the five guilty verdicts returned last week, possibly condemning Maxwell to spend the rest of her life behind bars, were for 'all the victims'. David said that after he revealed his ordeal, another juror came forward with to share that they too had been sexually abused. Legal experts said that if David failed to disclose his past experiences before the jury deliberations, Maxwell could have grounds to claim a mistrial and have her convictions quashed. Moira Penza, a former federal prosecutor in New York, said: 'I certainly hope the juror disclosed this fully on his questionnaire.' 'A little strange the defence didn't strike him. It could definitely be an issue.' 'In the first instance it would likely form the basis for a motion to Judge [Alison] Nathan for a new trial.' However, the question of whether a potential juror was a victim of sexual abuse or a relative or friend of a victim was asked in the 50-question questionnaire completed by each juror ahead of selection. Scotty could not remember that question when asked by DailyMail.com but was certain that he had answered all questions honestly. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 5/16 DOJ-OGR-00020878 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 53 of 221 A-253 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-03301-AT Document 58 Filed 02/28/23 Page 253 of 221 'They were all believable. Nothing they said felt to me like a lie,' he 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,' he said, and he explained this to fellow jurors. 'But I can't remember all the details, there are some things that run together.' Scotty said when he chose to share his own experience of sexual abuse the room 'went silent'. It has since been speculated that the fact that a juror was a victim of sexual abuse could be used by Maxwell as grounds of appeal. SHARE THIS ARTICLE RELATED ARTICLES 'Brutal' Prince Andrew court hearing 'couldn't have gone...' Ghislaine Maxwell juror was abuse victim: Convicted sex... New York judge leaves Prince Andrew sweating as he decides... Scotty recalled looking directly at Maxwell, 'I could literally see her [all the time]. There were times when it felt like she was staring right at me and we would lock eyes...it didn't feel real' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 6/16 DOJ-OGR-00020879 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page54 of 221 A-254 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-03301-MKV Document 58 Filed 12/29/22 Predatory DailyMail Online Scotty is completely satisfied that they reached the right verdict and that, with Maxwell's conviction, justice has been done. He says that he believes she will spend the rest of her life in prison unless a deal is done https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 7/16 DOJ-OGR-00020880 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page55 of 221 A-255 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-03301-PKC Maxwell Juror #46 Scotty said that Maxwell's manner in court was discussed during deliberations. He said, 'We did discuss that we thought she was a little standoffish and not necessarily cold, more like she was paying attention' However, the question of whether a potential juror was a victim of sexual abuse or a relative or friend of a victim was asked in the 50-question questionnaire completed by each juror ahead of selection. Scotty could not remember that question when asked by DailyMail.com but was certain that he had answered all questions honestly. He also revealed that he was not the only juror to share a story of sexual abuse and that it did not affect his ability to view Maxwell as innocent until proven guilty. It did, however that he believes give him access to a better understanding of the testimony of victims. To that end, he said, the defense's tactic of 'going hard' on the victims did not play well with him or other jurors. Scotty pointed to defense attorney Laura Menninger's use of air-quotes when questioning Jane about her story of 'escaping' Epstein at one point. He said, 'Everything, her tone, using air-quotes with escape ... I think she was acting in order to convince us that this girl's lying and lying for money.' Instead, he said, all it did was convince jurors that the defense team were showing a complete lack of respect for the victims. He said, 'I just felt terrible I'm like, 'I can't believe you're treating this woman like this.' Like even if she's lying there's better ways to go about it...I don't feel attacking them that way or degrading her based on what she said was the way to go.' The jury was sent out with a daunting 80 pages of instructions after a trial that was often dizzying in detail with lengthy testimony from the victims alone, and six counts to consider. At first, Scotty admitted, jurors struggled to know where to start or how to make any progress at all. He said that they did not take an initial vote of opinions but instead, on the first day they were sent out simply chose a foreperson and began by reading the instructions page by page. He said, 'It was overwhelming. I mean 80 pages of how you interpret the law on each count, and it flips back and forth between different pages, and you have to flip 20 pages in order to get a definition of something else that can apply to one specific count.' 'Brutal' Prince Andrew court hearing 'couldn't have gone worse' for him: Duke's hopes of having case thrown out hang by a thread after judge 'made it very clear he did not accept' royal lawyers' arguments, experts say Prince Andrew's hopes of getting the case by his US sex accuser thrown out of court were hanging by a thread last night following a 'brutal' hearing in New York. A judge told the royal he would find out 'pretty soon' - most likely within days - if his bid to have the lawsuit dismissed would be successful. But the early signs were not good for the Queen's son after Judge Lewis Kaplan put his legal team through a bruising encounter during a make-or-break hearing in New York yesterday. One legal expert said that the hearing 'could not have gone worse' and pointed out that the fact that his lawyers were reduced to saying they 'respectfully disagree' with the judge did not bode well- adding 'respectfully disagreeing with the judge means you are about to lose.' Prince Andrew is interviewed for the BBC's Newsnight in November 2019. In the interview, Andrew denied Ms Giuffre's claim that they had shared a sweaty dance at a London nightclub, saying that at the time he could not sweat due to a condition Andrew's lawyer was seen seeking to persuade the court that his accuser, Virginia Roberts, now known as Virginia Giuffre, had waived her right to sue him when she https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 8/16 DOJ-OGR-00020881 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page56 of 221 A-256 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-03301-AT Document 635 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 2 Maxwell faced six counts relating to sex trafficking which centered on the stories of four victims. A fifth victim, Kate, was called only to show a pattern of grooming behavior and was not directly implicated in any of the counts. At first jurors struggled to agree, Scotty said, over the legal definitions of terms such as 'enticing.' He said, 'It was super confusing. It didn't get heated. It was just confusing, and when people are confused, tones can get raised. Nobody ever yelled at other people. People would just speak, sounding frustrated. 'So, we [realized] we had to come up with a new game plan and that game plan was, we're going to talk to each other with compassion.' According to Scotty once the jurors had found a way to 'understand' each other they worked methodically through each count starting with count 2. This was the only charge on which they did not convict Maxwell and related to the charge of 'enticing' Jane to travel for sexual exploitation. An initial vote saw 7 jurors vote guilty and 5 not guilty. Those 'not guilty' votes turned to 'not sure' on further discussion. Ultimately, he said, it was not a question of Jane's credibility but rather the fact that they simply did not feel the evidence was there to meet the necessary bar of beyond reasonable doubt. Working through each charge jurors wrote out lists of evidence on a white board and attached post-it notes as they built the case for each as they saw it and deliberated towards consensus. On counts two and four - both relating to Jane - there was a 7/5 split of guilty/not sure. On counts one, three and five - all conspiracy charges - there was a 10/2 guilty/not sure split and on count six, the sex trafficking charge relating to Carolyn, all voted guilty from the start. Scotty said he never felt pressure from either the judge or the rest of the jurors to reach a verdict. In fact, he said, when the judge sent a note on Wednesday 29 December informing them that if they had not reached a verdict she would recall them the following day, they were about to send her a note saying they had reached consensus on all counts. Maxwell signed an earlier £370,000 ($500,000) legal settlement with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, the duke's friend. Miss Roberts, 38, one of the billionaire sex offender's most high-profile victims, claims she was trafficked by him and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with Andrew on three occasions when she was 17. The 61-year-old prince vehemently denies the claims and says he has no recollection of even meeting her. Judge Kaplan appeared mostly dismissive of the arguments by the duke's lawyer, Andrew Brettler. He said that part of the 2009 settlement protecting 'other potential defendants' that Andrew's lawyers had appeared to be leaning on was 'unclear' and pointed to two sentences in the text that seemed to suggest it could not be used by Andrew. Judge Kaplan also pointed to language in the agreement stating it is 'not intended to be used by any other person' to protect themselves from lawsuits without the agreement of Miss Roberts and Epstein - again suggesting Andrew could not rely on it. While he did not immediately rule at the end of the hearing, he made clear that he was not leaning Andrew's way as he rejected much of the reasoning offered by Mr Brettler, who said the case 'should absolutely be dismissed'. Judge Kaplan told the two sides: 'I appreciate the arguments and the passion. You'll have the decision pretty soon.' But he directed that the exchange of potential evidence in the case was to proceed as scheduled - which was seen as an indication he would likely rule against Andrew's motion. Sources close to the proceedings yesterday described them as 'brutal' for Andrew. During the hour-long hearing, held via video conference due to Covid, Judge Kaplan interjected several times in Mr Brettler's arguments. He told him once: 'With all due respect, Mr Brettler, that's not a dog that's going to hunt here' and another time asked the lawyer outright: 'So what?' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 9/16 DOJ-OGR-00020882 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page57 of 221 A-257 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-06305-LJL Document 215 Filed 01/26/22 Preserved Daily Mail Online Maxwell (pictured with Epstein) faced six counts relating to sex trafficking which centered on the stories of four victims https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 10/16 DOJ-OGR-00020883 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page58 of 221 A-258 1/26/22, 3:30 PM Case 1:20-cr-06305-AT Document 134-1 Filed 01/05/22presiding Daily Mail Online https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10370193/Ghislaine-Maxwell-juror-says-evidence-convinced-panel-predator.html 11/16 DOJ-OGR-00020884 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 60 of 221 A-260 1/26/22, 8:52 PM Case 1:20-cr-00333-GHW Document 4 Filed 07/02/2020 Filed by: Clerk, U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y. REUTERS January 5, 2022 · 2:33 PM EST Last Updated 21 days ago United States Some Ghislaine Maxwell jurors initially doubted accusers, juror says By Luc Cohen 4 minute read https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/ 1/16 DOJ-OGR-00020886 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 61 of 221 A-261 1/26/22, 8:52 PM Case 1:20-cr-00333-GHW Document 58 Filed 12/29/21 Page 4 of 16 Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell sits as the guilty verdict in her sex abuse trial is read in a courtroom sketch in New York City, U.S., December 29, 2021. REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg NEW YORK, Jan 5 (Reuters) - During jury deliberations after the trial of British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, some jurors initially doubted the accounts of two of her accusers, one member of the jury said on Tuesday night. This juror, who asked to be identified only by his first and middle names, said some of the jurors had issues with the credibility of witnesses known as Jane and Carolyn, two of the four women who testified that Maxwell set them up with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein as teenagers. He said that after some of the jurors questioned the accuracy of the two women's memories, he decided to share his own experience of being sexually abused as a child. He said that he remembered most important elements of what happened to him, but not every single detail. That swayed some jurors, he said. Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com "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," Scotty David, a 35-year-old Manhattan resident, told Reuters in a phone interview. He gave an earlier interview to The Independent. He added that coming to a unanimous verdict "wasn't easy, to be honest." "There's a room of 12 people and we all have to be on the same page and we all have to understand what's going on," he said. "And then we have to agree. So that's partly why it took so long." Maxwell, 60, was convicted on Dec. 29 of recruiting and grooming teenage girls for sexual encounters with Epstein. The conviction followed five full days of deliberations. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/ 2/16 DOJ-OGR-00020887 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 62 of 221 A-262 1/26/22, 8:52 PM Case 1:20-cr-0033-GHW Document 134-1 Filed 01/05/22 Page 4 of 4 During jury selection, hundreds of prospective jurors were given questionnaires asking, among other things, if they or anyone in their families had experienced sexual abuse, court records show. For those who answered yes, the judge in the case asked during follow-up questioning if it would affect their ability to serve as a fair or impartial juror, the records show. Scotty David said he did not recall being asked about his experience during follow-up questioning, known as voir dire. He said he "flew through" the initial questionnaire and also did not recall being asked on the form about personal experiences with sexual abuse, but that he would have answered honestly. The U.S. Attorney's office in Manhattan wrote a letter to U.S. District Judge Allison Nathan on Wednesday asking her to conduct an inquiry into the juror's description of being a victim of sexual abuse and his responses to the questionnaire, in light of the juror's statements to outlets including Reuters. "While the court instructed jurors that they were free to discuss their jury service with anyone of their choosing, some of the statements, as related in the media, merit attention by the court," the letter read. Maxwell's defense attorneys did not respond to requests for comment about Scotty David's account of the jury deliberations or his responses to questions during jury selection. Jurors were not identified by name during the trial. Scotty David shared with Reuters a photograph of an instruction sheet from the court telling him to return on Nov. 29 for the final day of jury selection. His juror number, which is listed on the sheet, was among the 18 chosen as jurors or alternates. Maxwell's defense lawyers argued that the women's memories had been corrupted over the years and that they were motivated by money to implicate Maxwell. Scotty David said several jurors initially were not sure whether to convict Maxwell on the sex trafficking count, which is backed up by the testimony of a woman named Carolyn who said she was 14 when Epstein began abusing her in 2002. But he said some jurors changed their minds after hearing the personal story of one juror who said she grew up poor. Carolyn said she dropped out of school in seventh grade and was paid $300 - sometimes by Maxwell - each time she gave Epstein an erotic massage. Carolyn said she used the cash to buy drugs. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-ghislaine-maxwell-jurors-initially-doubted-accusers-juror-says-2022-01-05/ 3/16 DOJ-OGR-00020888 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 64 of 221 A-264 2 DEPUTY CLERK: (Case called) Counsel, please state your name for the record, starting with the government. MS. MOE: Good morning, your Honor, Alison Moe. THE COURT: Good morning. Foreman, Andrew Ahrbach and Maurene Comey for the government. MS. STERNHEIM: Good morning, Bobbi C. Sternheim, counsel. Everdell for Ghislaine Maxwell, who is present on behalf of the defense. THE COURT: Good morning. And Mr. Spadeq on behalf of juror 50, please state your appearance. MR. SPODEK: Good morning, your Honor, Todd Spodek on behalf of Juror 50, who is present. Thank you. THE COURT: We're here today for a hearing on the defendant's motion for a new trial. The government has consented and to indeed requested this hearing as to Juror 50. My opinion and order dated February 24, 2022 ordered Juror 50's responses into the jury selection questionnaire. That opinion lays out the scope and nature of today's hearing. In addition to the motion for a new trial briefing that I received from both sides, I also received proposed questions from both sides which I have carefully considered. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 20 CR 330 (AJN) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Before: HON. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge Appearances DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York ALISON MOE MAURENE COMEY ANDREW AHRBACH Assistant United States Attorneys COHEN & GRESSER LLP Attorneys for Defendant BOBBI C. STERNHEIM Attorney for Defendant SPOPEK LAW GROUP Attorneys for Juror 50 TODD A. SPOPEK DOJ-OGR-00020890 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page65 of 221 A-265 4 M38TMAX1 Juror 50. In post-verdict press interviews he did not reveal his last name. Consistent with that anonymity order during trial, I will permit that to continue. In that letter dated March 1st, 2022 that Mr. Spodek informed me that Juror 50 would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at this hearing. Ask you see from my February 24 opinion, Mr. Spodek, I am going to ask Juror 50 questions today about responses that he gave during the jury selection process in the case of United States v. Maxwell. Does it remain your client's intention to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to those questions? MR. SPODEK: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: I'm going to confirm on the record with your client, Mr. Spodek, is it your intention to assert your Fifth Amendment privilege in response to the questions I'm going to ask you today? JUROR 50: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I received a written application from the government last night. Ms. Moe, could you confirm that the government is making the application? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In accord with the application, I have SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 M38TMAX1 preparing for today's hearing, in the submitted questions, the defense renewed the request that counsel be permitted to conduct the questioning. I am denying that request. I will conduct this proceeding in accord with my February 24 opinion. Following my questioning, I will hear from counsel for the parties at sidebar as to any proposed follow-up questions that they wish be asked and I will consider those requests. In a moment, I will address counsel for Juror 50. Let me ask counsel for the parties if there are any preliminary matters. MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor, thank you. MS. STERNHEIM: No, thank you. THE COURT: All right. Juror 50 is present and represented by retained counsel, Mr. Spodek. Mr. Spodek, just as a preliminary matter, does your client wish that he be referred to here as Juror 50 rather than using his full name? MR. SPODEK: Yes. THE COURT: And I understand, but again confirm for me that in post-verdict press interviews he did not reveal his last name, is that correct? MR. SPODEK: That's correct. THE COURT: I do intend to continue to refer to him as Juror 50. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020891 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page66 of 221 A-266 6 M37MX1 having been duly sworn, certified as follows: EXAMINATION BY THE COURT: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: I'm going to approach with the court reporter and ask Juror 50 to state and spell his name for the record. His name will be redacted from the public transcript. (At sidebar) THE WITNESS: (in open court) BY THE COURT: Q. With that, Juror 50, you are under oath. I will begin with some general instructions to you. If at any point you don't understand something that I'm asking, please ask for clarification. Don't speculate as to the meaning of my question, ask for clarification. In responding to questions, I instruct you not to tell me about the jury deliberations or thought process during deliberations. I'm not asking questions about those and you should not provide that information in response to my questions, let me know if there's something you don't understand, do not respond with information about the jury's deliberations, and tell the truth. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 5 M37MX1 signed the proposed immunity order which will be docketed with Juror 50's name redacted. In view of your assertion of the fifth Amendment, I have signed an order granting you immunity with respect to your testimony in this proceeding. That means that no testimony given by you or any information, directly or indirectly, derived from your testimony may be used against you in a federal criminal case, except if you testify falsely today you could be prosecuted for perjury. In light of this immunity, you will be required to answer questions today. So in other words, you need to answer my questions truthfully. If you don't answer truthfully, you could be prosecuted for perjury, not be prosecuted in federal court based on any truthful testimony that you here today, even if that testimony indicated you committed a crime. JUROR 50: Yes, Your Honor. I understand that. THE COURT: All right. I am going to have Juror 50 come forward to the witness stand, please. (Continued on next page) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020892 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page67 of 221 A-267 M38TMX1 Q. On your questionnaire you indicated no as your answer. checked the box for no. Is no an accurate answer to that question? A. No. It is not. Q. What is an accurate answer to that question? A. Yes for self. Q. Okay. If you look at question 48A, that question says: If you list names, please explain on the questionnaire. And when you filled out the questionnaire on November 4, 2021, you left that blank. A. I would have put I was abused as a child. Q. Without listing names, what happened? A. It was a family member, who is no longer a part of the family, and one of their friends when I was nine and ten years old. Q. Did this happen on one occasion or multiple occasions? A. Multiple occasions. Q. And did you tell anyone several years later when you were in high school? A. I did not. Q. And when you told someone in high school, did you tell authorities or adults or friends? A. Friends. Q. Who did you tell? A. I told my mom and she called the police station and gave a report of the account and but never received any paperwork. So SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 M38TMX1 Q. If there is a response that is too difficult or embarrassing for you to share in open court, you may request to speak at sidebar with me and counsel. However, if you have already shared the information publicly, including in media interviews, then I will not allow the sidebar. There's a binder in front of you. I have marked the document in there as Court Exhibit 1, so it's a record for this hearing and you may open that. Q. That is a copy of the questionnaire that you filled out on November 4, 2021. Please take a moment and look through it and no that you're familiar with it and can identify it. A. Yes. Q. Do you recognize that as the questionnaire that you filled out on November 4, 2021, as part of the jury selection process in this case? A. Yes, your Honor. Q. If you will turn to page 24 and look at question 48. That question reads: Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher or family member. (In parenthesis, this includes that question 48?) A. Yes, your Honor. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020893 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page68 of 221 A-268 10 M38TMAX1 Yes self. Q. And when you say "yes self," what are you referring to? A. I'm referring to the sexual abuse. I'm completing that What was thinking when I was sort of crime like that. I wasn't thinking I was robbed or mugged or some sort of my sexual abuse as a victim of a crime because I no longer associate being a victim with the abuse. Q. Have you ever been robbed? A. Never. Q. Ever been mugged? A. Never. Q. Family or friends ever been robbed or mugged. A. No. Q. Or mugged? A. I don't know anybody that has ever been robbed or mugged. Question 25a, asked about the experience as a fair and impartial juror in this case? You left that blank when you filled it out on November 4. What is an accurate answer to 25A? I was definitely able to set aside everything and be fair and impartial. In light of the answer that you gave to 48A, I am Okay. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 9 M38TMAX1 I don't know if anything was actually filed or anything done. Q. There were no charges brought. You said a family member, no longer a family member, Again, without listing names, what was the nature of the familial relationship? A. A stepbrother. Q. You said stepbrother. A. Yes. Q. I'm going to ask you to look at question 48B. Question 48B reads: If your answer was yes, do you believe this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case? When you filled this out on November 4, you left that blank. What is an accurate answer to 48B? A. It would have been no because it did not affect my ability to be fair and impartial at all. Q. I'm going to turn to page 13 of the questionnaire. Question 25 reads: Have you or any of your relatives or close friends ever been a victim of a crime? And you checked this out on when you filled this out on November 4, is no, it's an incorrect answer. Q. Looking back at it now, who would have been an accurate answer have been? A. It would have yes friend or family. Q. Yes self, yes friend or family? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020894 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page69 of 221 A-269 12 M38MAX1 Q. Why is that? A. I flied through this questionnaire. I never thought that I was chosen to sit on this jury. I -- I honestly never thought I would be super early, and I get here early and it took 45 minutes just to get through the security line. And we get ushered into a room -- Q. I will come back and ask you some questions about the process for filling it out -- A. Got it. Q. -- for this question, just with respect to this question, A. Got it. Q. At this point I was super distracted because I was sat literally within four feet of the table where everybody was dropping off of their questionnaires. People were asking questions, there was papers being ripped off the questionnaire packets, and there's a lot of talking going on, and there's super distracting. I'm like: I want to finish. So I just went through and marking it. I didn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the questions as I'm going through and marking it. Q. As you sit here now, what's the answer to question 497 A. It would have been -- yes, that a stepbrother was accused -- and his friend was accused of sexual abuse. Q. Okay. So a moment ago you said the answer would have been SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 11 M38MAX1 going to ask you to turn to question 49. It's on page 25. Question 49 reads: Have you or a friend or family member ever been accused of sexual harassment or sexual assault, and then in parenthesis: This included both formal accusations in a court or law or informal accusations in a social or work setting of actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher or family member. Q. When you filled this out on November 4, you checked no. Is that an accurate answer? A. Yes, your Honor. Q. So the incident that you described in response to 48 in which, as I understand it, you informed your mother when you were in high school that when you were nine or ten a family member had engaged in sexual abuse with you, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. So why is that not responsive to question 497 A. Because I don't consider them part of my family. I never considered them part of my family even when they lived with us for a few years, when you got to Q. And when you filled out the questionnaire, when you got to this question were you thinking about what happened to you but you didn't respond yet because you didn't consider them a family member, or you didn't consider it at all. A. I didn't even consider it at all. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020895 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page70 of 221 A-270 14 M38PMAX1 Q. Did you hope that you would be A. I did not hope to be on this 'jury. But again, like if you're going to serve jury duty, it might as well as be something that's interesting, but I did not set out in order to get on this jury. Q. Let me ask you to return to question 18A, page 24. You spoke to this a little bit but I want to make sure I understand the answer. Q. You indicated that when you checked no, that was an inaccurate answer. A. I didn't see the part where it says, 'I was distracted by all the noise going on around me.' I was just like 'no.' I said, completely skimmed way too fast. And again, I just wanted to get done with it. Q. Had you been sitting for hours, there were three audiovisual problems I literally sat there for three hours, getting your video to play, so we I didn't have a phone, I didn't have a book, I was sitting there twiddling my thumbs thinking about the break up that just happened a few weeks prior and I was sitting in my feelings and not very focused. Q. So tell me what you understand to be asking for information to be asking about family or a friend. A. I thought it was asking for self? And the box that says yes for self? I just missed it. Right, I just missed it. Q. This was one of the biggest mistakes I have ever made in my life, and if I could go back and change everything and have slowed down and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 M38PMAX1 no because you didn't consider them family. A. Family, yeah. Q. But now you say yes because it would have been a stepbrother. A. Because by marriage, that person was my stepbrother. Explain. Q. So when you road the question that way and it says has a friend or family member ever been accused, then the correct answer would have been yes, a friend or family member. Q. Okay. And so the response then for 48A is what you would have given for 48B? A. Yes, your Honor. Q. And 49B, do you believe this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case? A. In no case. Q. It would not affect me. In responding a moment ago you said you never thought you would be chosen as a juror. Why is that? A. Only because the sheer volume of people that were there, in this case, I just never thought - number of people. So I just never thought it was going to be me when they played the video of you, I just thought that the likelihood of being chosen, surely they will be interviewing thousands of people. And they ultimately choose twelve people to sit on a jury, and I never thought I would be one of those twelve. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020896 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 .02/28/2023, 3475901, Page71 of 221 A-271 16 M38TMAX1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Absolutely not. Q. In responding to this question, did you answer no so as to make it more likely that you would be selected for the jury? A. Absolutely not, your Honor. Q. Did your history of sexual abuse motivate you in any way to try to tailor your answers to make it more likely that you would be selected for this jury? A. Not at all, your Honor. Q. At the time you filled out the questionnaire on November 4, did it occur to you that you might personally benefit in any way from being on the jury in this case? A. Not at all, your Honor. Q. I'm going to return to question 25 again, which you have indicated was inaccurately responded to and again discussed this, but I want to just hear directly in response to this question, why did you check no? A. Well, again, I don't really think about abuse. I wasn't thinking about it because it doesn't define me today. It's something that happened, and I have lived through it, and I became the person I am today because of my goals and ambitions. And I do not feel that I'm a victim of a crime, even though looking back on this abuse, that does make me a victim of a crime, which is why I should have marked yes for self. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 15 M38TMAX1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. There are other questions on the questionnaire that are structured with similar yes, yes self, yes friend or family, or no. Do you recall seeing those questions? A. Only after I reread this do I recall that. Q. So none of the questions that included you, self, yes friend or family member, or no - A. I did not pick up on that when I was filling this out. Q. Okay. When did you first learn that an answer to the questionnaire was inaccurate? A. When an article had come out about Lucia through The Independent. Q. So you learned of an inaccurate answer in an article about an interview? A. Yes. Q. And what about during the interview? A. No. Q. During the interview, when did you first learn that the questionnaire may contain questions about sexual abuse history? A. That was during my Daily Mail interview with the reporter Laura Collins. Q. So we're talking about your response to 18 which you have indicated was inaccurate. Did you in any way intentionally provide an inaccurate answer to this question? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020897 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 72 of 221 A-272 18 M3BMAX1 noon. Q. Were you rushed in any way? A. I felt rushed only because of all the commotion going on in front of me and everybody else just going by on both sides. Q. And how did that make you feel rushed? A. It made me - growing up in school I never wanted to be the last one finished. You want to finish your test and go hang out with your friends. So it's that same policy, I get that same kind of feeling and I'm like: Why am I still reading this? I'm never going to get it done with. Let's get this done with, let's get this done with. Q. Would you say you approached the cilling out of the questionnaire with diligence? A. Looking back on it now, your Honor. Q. Were you concerned with following my instructions? A. Absolutely not. Q. You were not concerned with following my instructions? A. No, I really -- this is a terrible excuse, but I didn't really think I would be chosen. Q. Some of the questions required following on whether a yes or no answer was provided. Do you recall that? A. Yes, your Honor. Q. And we'll take a quick look at two examples, question 9 on page 8, question 9A and question 10A. Question 9A asked whether your beliefs would make you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 17 M3BMAX1 Q. In any way did you intentionally provide an inaccurate answer to this question, your Honor. A. Absolutely not. Q. In responding to the question, did you answer no so as to make it more likely that you would be selected for the jury? A. No, your Honor. Q. Did your history of sexual abuse motivate you, again, to try to tailor this answer to be selected for the jury? A. No, your Honor, I wasn't even thinking about that. Q. I am going to return to the topic of the process for filling out the questionnaire, and you have spoken to that some by background, you will give you as much space as you want to respond. A. Just by background, you were summoned to appear for jury duty on the morning of November 4th, is that correct? A. Yes, your Honor. Q. And when did you learn you would be filling out a questionnaire? A. When we got to the courtroom. Q. When did you learn the case for which you were being considered as a juror? A. Three hours after sitting in that chair. Q. And how long did it take you to fill out the questionnaire? A. It's a great question. I don't recall how long it took, but I want to say we were done by around noon or a little after SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020898 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 73 of 221 A-273 20 M38TMAX1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 M38TMAX1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020899 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page74 of 221 A-274 22 M38TMAX1 would have been asked, but I honestly didn't think about it. I really don't think about my sexual abuse, period. I don't tell very many people. Q. After the trial you gave interviews, in which you did tell people about your history of sexual abuse. A. Yes. Q. How do you reconcile what you just said with that? A. So I didn't -- this is going back to a deliberation thing, so I have to think about how to say this. I don't want to talk about it, but -- Q. Well, if you can, you just said you don't talk about it. I only talk about my abuse, I could say that -- I didn't talk to a reporter in order to insert anything, I used it in order to talk to a sportscaster about jury deliberations, I didn't use it in order to insert anything, I just gave that as to why I believe in a certain way based on all the evidence that was provided during the trial. Q. I suppose that the question is: I was prepared for the public and you knew you were giving national and international media interviews, you were prepared for your history of sexual abuse to be widely known. A. Right, but not something -- I didn't think this would happen, like I didn't lie on this jury and then go to the press and tell them about my abuse. It just -- it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 M38TMAX1 given the questionnaire, an hour to fill out the questionnaire. Q. You say, if you had to be accurate. A. I think that was pretty easy questionnaire. Q. And to return to 48, so you skimmed through it, if yes, explain, if no, explain. A. Looking again at 48, which has sort of a lot of white space for the answer there, do you see that? Q. And again, this is how many of the questions were structured: Check box yes, self, yes friend or family, yes friend or family. A. I just read the friend or family, again, like distracted, so I missed that "have you or family," and then "yes self" while reading this question. Q. At the time you were filling this out, were you surprised you didn't honestly think about friend and family but not about it? A. At the time you filled out the questionnaire, did you think that your history of sexual abuse would be something that parties and I would want to know in order to determine if you could be fair and impartial? A. Looking back now, yes, that's a question that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020900 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page75 of 221 A-275 24 M38TMAX1 indicated you had been a juror on it? A. I don't know if they were following the news of the case, it with my friends now, I it. It's not like I have had some conversations about it -- topic afterward, but most people don't even know about sexual abuse isn't a topic didn't know much about it either. Sexually abuse isn't a topic I really want to research or learn that frequently, that I didn't even watch about that. Q. You did understand from your interview that the fact that you were abused would be a known fact in the world. A. Yes, your Honor. Q. And did you make a conscious decision that you were okay with that? A. Yes, your Honor. After sitting on this trial for several weeks and seeing the victims be brave enough to give their story, I felt like if they can do it, then so can I. I didn't have focused on the details that happened to me, I'm going to take us back in time to not November 4 but November 16, 2021. That's when I questioned you individuals that I'm going to do now is I'm going to take us back in time to not November 4 but November 16, 2021. That's when I questioned you individuals that I prosecuted that I recall that process. Q. At that time I asked you some follow-up questions based on your responses to the questionnaire and some additional SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 M38TMAX1 a little illogical thinking about it, like if I lied deliberately I wouldn't have told a soul that I could - this position to where I could have put myself in a position that I'm now in. It was an honest mistake and one of the biggest mistakes, and again, I apologize for waiting a lot of people's time and money, and this is never anything that I intended or did on purpose. Q. I still want to just make sure I understand your point is filling out the questionnaire and sort of walking through life and doesn't think about the history of sexual abuse at the same time you were prepared for the world to know about it. A. It was only how I view things and how I can recall memories, that's it. I didn't talk about my abuse, I just said I can remember things, and I recall things, like the color of the wall or - Q. Did you think about the fact that many people would learn from your interview that you had this history of sexual abuse? A. No, I did not. Q. You didn't think that anybody - certainly my family or friends would find this out. A. No, I did not think that anybody - certainly my family or friends would find this out. Q. Friends weren't following the news of the case after you SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020901 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page76 of 221 A-276 26 M3BTMAX1 1 questions. Do you recall that? 2 A. Yes, your Honor. 3 Q. So if you had filled out your questionnaire accurately as 4 evidence presented at trial and my Instructions as to the law? 5 A. Yeah. No, your Honor, I would be able to review the 6 evidence based solely on the evidence, and if you 7 Q. Okay. At the time I asked you questions, did you believe there's anything about 8 your experience with prior sexual abuse that would interfere 9 with your ability to assess the credibility of witnesses 10 alleging sexual abuse? 11 A. Absolutely in no way. 12 Q. So at the time did you believe that you would be able to 13 conclude that a witness alleging sexual abuse was not 14 testifying truthfully, if that was what the evidence suggested? 15 A. Correct, your Honor, yes, I did. 16 Q. At the time I asked you questions on November 16, did you 17 harbor any bias against Ms. Maxwell? 18 A. Not at all. 19 Q. At the time I asked you questions on November 16, were you 20 biased in favor of the government or with 21 the prosecution? 22 Q. Did you want to put your thumb on the scale in any 23 direction? 24 A. No. 25 Q. At the time I asked you questions, and in light of your experience with sexual abuse, did you believe that this subject: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 M3BTMAX1 1 questions. Do you recall that? 2 A. Yes, your Honor. 3 Q. So if you had filled out your questionnaire accurately as 4 evidence presented at trial and my Instructions as to the law? 5 A. Yeah. No, your Honor, I would be able to review the 6 evidence based solely on the evidence, and if you 7 Q. Okay. At the time I asked you questions, did you believe there's anything about 8 your experience with prior sexual abuse that would interfere 9 with your ability to assess the credibility of witnesses 10 alleging sexual abuse? 11 A. Absolutely in no way. 12 Q. So at the time did you believe that you would be able to 13 conclude that a witness alleging sexual abuse was not 14 testifying truthfully, if that was what the evidence suggested? 15 A. Correct, your Honor, yes, I did. 16 Q. At the time I asked you questions on November 16, did you 17 harbor any bias against Ms. Maxwell? 18 A. Not at all. 19 Q. At the time I asked you questions on November 16, were you 20 biased in favor of the government or with 21 the prosecution? 22 Q. Did you want to put your thumb on the scale in any 23 direction? 24 A. No. 25 Q. At the time I asked you questions, and in light of your experience with sexual abuse, did you believe that this subject: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020902 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page77 of 221 A-277 28 M38TMAX1 approached the questionnaire process, whether he took the Court's instructions seriously. We would just propose asking parallel questions about the questions we were asked in person, in particular because the juror was asked during voir dire similar questions about bias for or against the government, impartiality. And so to clarify the record, whether he took answering those questions in person seriously and answered truthfully. MS. STERNHEIM: Could we have a moment? THE COURT: (Pause) MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think there was several areas of follow-up here that are warranted. First, the juror made some reference to his healing process. I couldn't quite understand what he said at the time, something about how he views himself as a victim or not as a victim. I think you need to understand his healing process and what he has gone through, because that affects his ability to be an impartial juror in a case involving sexual trauma. Is this something that he is still thinking? How he deals with the healing process and how he thinks about himself as a victim affects how he views the victim witnesses in this case, and I think there ought to be more questions about that. THE COURT: What's the proposed question? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 M38TMAX1 matter of the case would distract you in such a way that would distract you from your duty as a juror? A. No, your Honor. Q. Would you be thinking about your own experience in a way that would prevent you from being fair or impartial? A. No, your Honor. Q. At the time I asked you questions on November 16, and in light of your experience with sexual abuse, did you believe that issues of reporting sexual abuse might be discussed at trial or might interfere with your ability to be fair or impartial as a juror in the case? A. No, your Honor. Q. At the time I asked you questions on November 16, and if you had answered accurately and based on your experience with sexual abuse, did you have any doubt as to your ability to be fair to both sides? A. No, your Honor, no doubt. THE COURT: All right. I will meet with counsel at sidebar. (At sidebar) THE COURT: I will give you an opportunity to propose follow-up questions in light of his responses to questions of counsel. MS. MQRN: Yeah, your Honor, Just one proposal. I believe the Court asked Juror 50 about the way in which he SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020903 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page78 of 221 A-278 30 M387MAX1 our follow up: How long did this go on? Were you home when this happened? What was the interaction between you and the abusers and family members? These are all things that go to the similarity. THE COURT: I have the same response. I considered those questions. We had, I think it was Juror 21 who had talked about familial abuse. The defense didn't propose to the core questions of impartiality and fairness, for example, request those questions and they didn't strike for cause, for example, some of the proposed jurors who indicated yes, the defense didn't inquire into the specific similarities and the like, request follow up as to the bottom line request is what is in issue. So that request is denied. Any other proposed follow up? I have a few things that turned up more. Mr. EVERDELL: Yes, I asked Judge Sweeney, you asked certain things that you believe that I do not believe says what this case is about, it is about the summary of the case which specifically says what this case is about, it is about sexual abuse of a minor, and did he just fly through that as well? It is clear that this juror has supplemented. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 MR. EVERDELL: In our submissions, but that you were in therapy, you talked publicly about the fact what was the nature of the therapy? Does it deal with your experiences as victim of sexual abuse? What was the healing process that you talked about? Does it involve addressing this issue of prior child sexual abuse? Were you in therapy during the trial? Is this an issue that you are still dealing with? THE COURT: I did review those questions proposed and I considered them. The defense did not propose any comparable questions during the voir dire process who indicated yes to this question and indicated a history of sexual abuse, so those requests are denied. Any other follow-up requests? MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we need to talk further about the fact this happened multiple times. We talked about the fact this happened, happened and a friend, a stepbrother and multiple times. I think we need to understand because I'm not trying to pry, your Honor, I'm trying to get to these details, but it is relevant, the extent of this juror's abuse and whether that lines up with the testimony we heard from the victims is relevant in an inquiry to bias. And I think we needed to understand a little more about similar questions that we proposed - we marked - to the Court in SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020904 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page79 of 221 A-279 32 M3BTMAX1 Thanks for telling my story. So if he says: I didn't expect the world to hear about my sexual abuse, yet at the same time he's telling Annie Farmer, "that suggests to me one of the victims, post-trial, 'that he was known as the victim of sexual abuse, he wanted to be seen as a champion of sexual abuse, and that this explanation that he is giving is simply false.'" There's also the Facebook post that he made after the fact. THE COURT: Just a moment. I will ask him to explain, to reconcile if he can, that he didn't he think people would know about it on social media and thanked one of the witnesses in the case. MR. EVEREDELL: Your Honor, he said this is a verdict, which I think includes himself. How does he reconcile that he didn't comment with the fact that he was a victim of sexual abuse, meaning: I'm doing this for all of the victims, which I think is clear. That's a conflict. Ghislaine Maxwell trial. What an incredible, surreal experience. Again, telling the world that I'm out here. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 M3BTMAX1 THE COURT: Make your arguments in briefing afterwards, if you're doing that. I want specific proposed questions in light of responses. MS. STERNHEIM: I know your Honor did not want to get into what happened in the jury room, but a couple of - I'm root permitted to get into that. THE COURT: You are permitted to discuss what he stated publicly and clearly he said that he - MS. STERNHEIM: have written an analysis of that issue in my opinion. That the 'jury deliberations does not allow me to accept, as part of this, evidence of what happened in jury deliberations.' You may disagree with that legal analysis. I have written extensively about it in my February 24 opinion. I won't reiterate that now. MS. STERNHEIM: He did not tell very many people about it, then he told the world. THE COURT: Right. I pressed repeatedly on that issue. If you have a specific follow up that you would like me to ask - MR. EVEREDELL: He said he didn't tell many people, but he also said he didn't think people would learn about his history of sexual abuse, despite the fact that he was telling reporters about that. He need to ask him, I think, about his post to Annie Farmer where he says: SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020905 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page80 of 221 A-280 34 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: And then I will believe he mentioned something about his interview with the journalist Lucia, first name Lucilla, and that this was an issue in the questionnaire. But I believe the reporting is that they discussed this at length, the consequences of him going public and the consequences of there were answers to jury questionnaire at issue here and about those questions that he would be talking about. I can't remember exactly what it is, but there was some discussion about the consequences of him going forward. And I believe what he said was: I didn't have any discussions or any lengthy discussions with the journalists about the consequences, about whether he just answered their questions. But I believe there was a discussion with Lucia, about -- I don't remember now -- what you're referring to. I don't understand what he wants to do. THE COURT: Okay. MR. EVERDELL: I think the issue is he was saying how he didn't expect to be public, he didn't expect to be known worldwide as a victim of sexual abuse, that he didn't expect this to come out, even though he's talking to journalists. My understanding is he had a discussion with Lucia, the journalist SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 THE COURT: I will ask the question how does he reconcile the statement that he didn't think anyone would with the fact that he was posting on social media. I think we also need some follow-up questions in our letter about his belief victim memory, because I think that goes to his ability to evaluate the evidence fairly and impartially. THE COURT: I will deny that. MR. EVERDELL: I believe also he said in his answers on the jury but if he is going to be paraphrasing, it might be something interesting. I think we need some follow-up about the import of his comment. Was it interesting? Was it that he found this of the fact that it involved victims of sexual abuse, and because he was the victim of sexual abuse himself that made it interesting for him? THE COURT: I will ask him what he meant. MS. STERNHAIN: I may have an issue, the last question about following your instructions. I think he said no. And insofar as saying no, how did he filled out the questionnaire? I will ask that question and then will ask the government's instructions during voir dire. THE COURT: Okay. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020906 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page81 of 221 A-281 36 W38TMX1 that talking to a reporter would necessarily make you known to the world about - your sexual abuse known to the world. If it's something that truly entered from The Independent that wasn't something that you spoke to Lucia, the reporter from The Independent fact that you spoke to, about the consequences that you might get into jury deliberations - about what you said to her sexual abuse and other things, there would be are those two thoughts to what you were doing. In your head, which and the journalist is think you would be known for this, and the government has no objection telling you very forth? MS. MOE: Your Honor, the understanding about his to limited follow-up questions about the whether it would become public. I do have concerns about the proposed question because it's confusing and a little cryptic. I don't know what the word "consequence" might mean in response to the question or that "sort" in particular driving at. I think the Court noted, in already publicly response to the question or that "sort" in particular driving at. I think the Court noted, in already publicly I think the Court noted, in already publicly SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 W38TMX1 from The Independent, about the consequences of him coming forward, which is: This is a momentous decision you're making. So I don't see how he squares his comments about I never thought by talking to the press that I would come forward and be known this way, when in fact I think there was a lengthy discussion he had with a journalist about this very fact. THE COURT: He said that he recognized by talking to the press about it that it would be known publicly. MR. EVERELL: I may have said that, but I think at the same time he's saying I didn't think this would be known by my parents and my friends - and I know how you square those responses. To me - and I know you don't want to hear at this point, subject of argument that you're simply not credible on this point because his responses are simply not credible on this point because but his responses are simply not credible on this point because he's talking out of both sides of his mouth; It makes no sense to me. I'm curious to hear more about what I perceive as blatant conflict in answers about going forward with a journalist about the consequences of going forward with a journalist about the consequences of going forward. You told me to ask about what he discussed with the journalist, who I believe is The Independent journalist, who I believe is The Independent MR. EVERELL: Lucilia, who I believe is The Independent journalist. So I would - I'm sorry it's not coming out very focused, but you had discussed before in responses to my questions about the fact that you didn't think SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020907 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page82 of 221 A-282 38 M38MAX1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rightly understands that question to be referring to whether he would be a courtroom like this- would understand he would be sitting in when talking to get an THE COURT: I will gp back and the understanding of what he thought would happen regarding his own history being MS. STERNHEIM: publicly known that he was someone who suffered from sexual abuse. 6 During the interview he mentioned a friend asking about you, "it turned question 48, and he said: "I recall being asked about family, and she said 'it beet red, and family, and she said 'it turned beet red.' He said: You're turning my head on the She actually said it in the papers. You're not on the stand. Not in the sun, she said, MR. EVANDELL: You're not on the stand, don't worry, but yes. THE COURT: MS. STERNHEIM: What was going through his mind when you're not on the stand? She mentioned that the question included talking about the first time he learned that the questionnaire had the question is: What was his MS. STERNHEIM: motivation in speaking to the press and being interviewed? Those questions, what motivated him after THE COURT: during the filing trial, is not relevant to what was going on SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 37 M38MAX1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 further questions about his understanding about sort of the magnitude of press coverage arising from the issue that gives rise to this hearing, which I believe he touched on as well. THE COURT: I think what I will do is go back and ask Did you understand at the time you talked to the press in the way that you did, did you understand that it would be publicly known that you were a victim of sexual abuse? We'll see what he says. MS. MCGINLEY: I think about the consequences of talking to the press about that? It's difficult for me to see what it's going at, but I will seek clarification or his answers, as I did multiple times, on the reconciling and understanding his thinking about coming out publicly as a victim of sexual abuse. He has explained some of the transformation process and the like. You can make your arguments about credibility. But I will go back and see if there's something regarding talking to the reporter about the consequences. Which also is a temporal issue here, he didn't think about it until he talked to the press, and in the course of that the press talked to him about the consequences and that changed his understanding potentially. MS. MCGINLEY: Yes, your Honor. And I think yet a third point, talking about consequences today, I think Juror 50 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020908 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 83 of 221 A-283 40 M38MAX2 (in open court) THE COURT: All right. I do have some additional questions, Juror 50. BY THE COURT: Q. I asked you whether you approached filling out the questionnaire with diligence. A. Yes, your Honor. Q. Can you recall that? A. Yes. Q. And you indicated no and you wish you had that sort of thing. A. And I asked whether you took my instructions carefully in the questionnaire. Q. Do you remember that? A. Yes, your Honor. Q. And your answer is no? A. Yes, your Honor. Q. Why didn't you, why is that? A. To make sure I understand, why didn't you take my instructions carefully? A. Again, like I said, I began to get super distracted. I was super inattentive. In order to get done, what happened, I just -- I don't know what happened. I just wanted to get done with it. Q. When you came back on November 16 for the follow-up questions, there was another instruction video. A. Do you recall that? A. Yes, your Honor. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 39 M38MAX1 I would ask questions about that, and I have out of the questionnaire responding to the voir dire him to talk to the press was not relevant to the inquiry. All right. Anything else? MS. ROE: Not from the government, your Honor, thank you. (Continued on next page) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020909 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 84 of 221 A-284 42 M3RYMAX2 1 Q. And when I asked you questions about this -- you said that you didn't think that 2 your family or friends would learn that you were a victim of 3 sexual abuse, despite the press interviews. Do I have that right? 4 A. Yes, your Honor. 5 Q. And why didn't you think that? 6 A. Well, I wasn't using my full name, and it's not ashamed -- I'm also not ashamed 7 that it happened and it's something that multiple people 8 that is relatively common that happened throughout the world. 9 Q. And we talked about this, but you understood that there was 10 a high level of press and public attention to the case. 11 Correct? 12 A. Yes, your Honor. 13 Q. Help me reconcile that you didn't think your friends and family 14 would learn about your sexual abuse with the fact that you were 15 speaking publicly about it. 16 A. The one thing that I can point to is that when my friends 17 commented on my post, texted me, even harassing me about 18 it, they didn't even know that this trauma was giving a little article about a juror 19 or really in the news at all. 20 Q. So I figured that I would find out about it? 21 A. So you couldn't see how they would find out about it? 22 Q. That wasn't something that I was -- 23 A. Yes, your Honor. 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 41 M3RYMAX2 1 Q. And when I asked you questions, those one-on-one questions, 2 did you pay attention to the instructions at that time? 3 A. Yes, your Honor. 4 Q. Did you listen carefully to my questions? 5 A. Yes, your Honor. 6 Q. Do you have any doubt that you answered those questions accurately? 7 A. I answered every single one of those questions accurately. 8 Q. Might you have failed to pay attention to the specifics of 9 the questions in any way? 10 A. Not at all, your Honor. 11 Q. And do you know what, given how you approached the 12 questionnaire? 13 A. Because it was a different situation. I wasn't distracted. 14 There weren't things going on. I wasn't sitting there for 15 hours. It was multiple weeks later. So, again, I wasn't at 16 that point, I wasn't thinking about my ex. 17 Q. Would you say that you're distracted easily? 18 A. I can become distracted, but it had no effect on my ability 19 to listen to all the evidence given during the trial, 20 serving in the jury, and listening to all the points. 21 Q. And what was your approach to my instructions at various 22 points? 23 A. It was to follow them. 24 Q. When you were testifying earlier -- and I asked you some 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00020910 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page85 of 221 A-285 44 M38YX2 1 the jury, and you had said that you didn't think you would. 2 And I asked you why, and I asked you if you hoped you would 3 If you said, well, I thought it would be interesting, this would be 4 What did you mean you thought it would be interesting? 5 A. So not everybody gets called for jury duty, some people 6 never get called in their entire lifetime. I figured - if it's not 7 what I mean by that is this is something interesting. It's not 8 boring. Maybe it's a fraud case. I don't know. 9 I just felt like this might be something interesting - I 10 Q. I asked you that the questionnaire included a history-of-sexual-abuse question. 11 Do you remember that? 12 A. Yes, your honor. 13 And you told me during a video interview, 14 Q. Yes, your honor. 15 A. Correct. 16 What was your reaction when you learned that the 17 questionnaire contained that question? I was, like, 'It's 18 A. Well, she asked me. And I believed that I had made a 19 It's what I thought. It's what I read. I didn't know I had 20 your own personal abuse because it's what I thought, and that's why 21 I responded that way. 22 Q. And how did you feel? 23 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 43 M38YX2 1 intentionally planning to hide; right? So if somebody were to 2 ask me if I was abused, I would say yes. 3 And otherwise - well, let me ask you: 4 You were posting on 5 social media about your role as a juror. 6 A. After the trial, yes. So wouldn't your friends and family find out in that 7 regard? 8 A. It just said that I had served on the jury. 9 I didn't say anything about it. 10 Q. There was a communication with one of the witnesses in the 11 case, Annie Farmer, on social media. 12 A. That's right. 13 And you thanked her for sharing your story. 14 Q. What did you mean by that? 15 A. She just shared the article, and then I commented on it; 16 that I was 17 that thank you for sharing my story because she said that brave enough to come forward, and so I thanked her for sharing 18 So your friends who followed you see that 19 hers as well. 20 Q. I don't have any followers. I think I had two 21 A. I don't know. Twitter is not 22 something I normally use. 23 So I had just randomly seen that 24 she'd shared that, when I asked whether you'd be on 25 You testified, when I wanted to comment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020911 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page86 of 221 A-286 46 M3BY9AX2 THE COURT: I don't understand what the question is. MS. STERNHEIM: Well, you had read that. So you knew what this case was about, and that was in your mind when you were answering the questionnaire. For him to say that I don't want argument. What question do you want me to ask? THE COURT: Did you read the summary of the case and understand that - I'll read it. I'll summarize this case - MS. STERNHEIM: Well, that was the subject matter of the case.* THE COURT: *'Did you understand that and ask: 'Did you understand the subject matter of the case?' MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. MS. POMERANTZ: No objection, your Honor. BY THE COURT: Q. Returning to the questionnaire, it says, page 4, actually the second page of the questionnaire, there were documents that you filled out. There were documents that you took off when you filled it out. A. Yes, your Honor. Q. Do you recall that? A. Yes. "The * * * summary reads: 'The charges of the indictment stem from allegations that from at least 1994 through 2004, the defendant conspired with and abetted Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 M3BY9AX2 A. Well, number one, I was, like, did I just mess something up entirely? And I was embarrassed and sort of like shocked and didn't know that was the full question. Q. I think at one point you said that you sort of realize the extent to which your interviewing would kind of reverberate. A. But in terms of the public knowing that you had a history of sexual abuse, with any of the reporters you spoke to, did you talk through the consequences you may have? A. No, your Honor. Q. And, again, I don't mean about this kind of process. But I just mean to speak about your history of sexual abuse. A. Correct. THE COURT: (At the sidebar) I'll briefly meet with counsel. THE COURT: I want to make sure that I've accurately captured the follow-up questions that were requested and give you a final opportunity if you have any additional questions for followup. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you. MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I had asked before if the Court could inquire about the summary of the case. He said he paid attention early on. He specifically said that the case was about sexual abuse. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020912 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page87 of 221 A-287 48 M38YMX2 issues from the hearing, but if I could just have one moment about a specific date. Okay, (Government confer off the record). MS. MODE: Your Honor, the government would propose that we submit our letter briefing by Friday. May 1, Judge? THE COURT: Yes. MS. STERNHEIM: briefing is due on Friday. that is going to start a trial, not that I would ask for two weeks for us to submit written request. But I would MS. MODE: Your Honor, the government respectfully submits that this issue has been prolonged in litigation. It has been briefed exhaustively. The only remaining issues are about Juror 50's testimony today and the inferences to be drawn, which is a very narrow and confined issue which can be resolved quickly and briefed quickly. Your Honor, this is an incredibly important issue. We are not asking for it. MS. STERNHEIM: I know it's incredibly important, but let me alter the fact of what there is to Ms. Sternheim. But let me look at the calendar. What date does your trial start, Ms. Sternheim? THE COURT: The 16th. MS. STERNHEIM: (212) 805-0300 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 M38YMX2 engage in criminal sexual activity, to transport minors to engage in criminal sexual activity, and to engage in sex trafficking of a minor." And the next paragraph lays out of the specific counts. Do you recall if you read that summary of the case? A. Yes, your Honor. I did. Q. So what did you understand the case to be about? A. Just that, what was written there. Q. And in reading that, or something that could cause you to think about your history of sexual abuse? A. It did not. Again, it's not part of who I am. It happened so long ago. (Witness excused.) THE COURT: All right. Counsel, let me ask your proposals as to some briefing, if necessary, post-trial briefing. Government? NS. MORE: Your Honor, the parties submit letter briefing respectfully propose that promptly following the hearing within the next few days. If I could just have a moment to confer with my colleagues about a specific date. Our general proposal would be to have a short and tight briefing schedule to resolve the DOJ-OGR-00020913 (212) 805-0300 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 88 of 221 A-288 50 THE COURT: All right. I think simultaneous briefing is appropriate. For one, I have responsive briefing on the legal issues, and so really what we're talking about is argument following on today's record. One week from today, the 15th. Simultaneous briefing. I don't care if you call it letter briefing or otherwise. All I care is that it's double-spaced so I can read it on my iPad. Fifteen pages max per side. MS. POGARNTZ: No, your Honor. Thank you. MS. STERNHEIM: Anything else from the government? I would just request that our submission of questions which was sent to chambers be made a part of this record. THE COURT: Yes. As I've said, I will docket everything. There's identifying information of Juror 50 in your submitted questions. So that needs to be redacted. But other than Juror 50 identifying information, the redactions for all materials, I believe, for all materials based on the post-trial briefing and the submitted questions can be publicly docketed so correctly. As well as my opinion had two lines of redactions. So I'll docket my opinion without redactions. I'll ask the parties to actually, I think we can handle the redactions for identifying information. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 The parties' briefing. I'll ask you to submit the briefs with redactions only for protecting juror privacy and juror identity. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: By tomorrow? MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. THE COURT: Thank you. So that will put everything on the record. As for today's hearing, the only thing that's redacted is Juror 50's name. And that's redacted on the immunity materials, as well as Mr. Spodek's letter just indicated "Juror 50." MS. STERNHEIM: Anything further, Ms. Moe? THE COURT: Not at this time. MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. We're adjourned. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOJ-OGR-00020914 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page101 of 221 A-301 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 13 of 29 Juror ID: 50 28b. If yes to 28, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? Yes No 28c. If yes to 28b, please explain: 29. Do you know or have any association-professional, business, or social, direct or indirect-with any member of the staff of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York? Yes X No 29a. If yes, please explain: 29b. If yes to 29, would this affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case? Yes No 29c. If yes to 29b, please explain: 30. Do you know or have any association-professional, business, or social, direct or indirect-with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, commonly known as the FBI? Yes X No 30a. If yes, please explain: -15- DOJ-OGR-00020927 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page103 of 221 A-303 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 15 of 29 Juror ID: 50 32a. If yes, please explain: PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CASE PARTICIPANTS 33. The next subset of questions asks whether you or any member of your family or a close friend personally knows or has past or present dealings with individuals involved in this case. To "personally know" means to have some direct or personal knowledge or connection to the following individuals. If you have only heard the names through media or social media, for example, that is not personal knowledge. 33a. Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with the Defendant in this case, Ghislaine Maxwell, or her family members? Yes No 33b. Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with Jeffrey Epstein? Yes No 33c. Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, the former Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Audrey Strauss, or anyone else who works for or used to work for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York? Yes No 33d. Do you or does any member of your family or a close friend personally know or have past or present dealings with any of the Assistant United States Attorneys who are prosecuting this case: Maurene Comey Yes No Alison Moe Yes No Lara Pomerantz Yes No Andrew Rohrbach Yes No -17- DOJ-OGR-00020929 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page105 of 221 A-305 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 17 of 29 Juror ID: 50 KNOWLEDGE OF CASE AND PEOPLE This case has been widely reported in the national and local media. There is nothing wrong with having heard something about this case. It is important to answer all of the following questions truthfully and fully. 34. Before today, had you read, seen, or heard anything about Ms. Maxwell? Yes No Unsure 34a. If yes or unsure, please state what you remember hearing, and how or from whom you may have heard (e.g., a friend, the newspaper, a website, social media). If you heard about Ms. Maxwell from a media source, please identify the media source by name: I read on a website that she was Jeffrey Epstein's girlfriend - source was CNN.com 35. Have you personally formed an opinion about Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence of the crimes charged as a result of anything you have heard, read or seen? Yes No Unsure Not applicable, I have not read/seen/heard about Ms. Maxwell 35a. If yes or unsure, please summarize your opinion: -19- DOJ-OGR-00020931 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page108 of 221 A-308 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 20 of 29 Juror ID: 50 41a. If no or unsure, please explain: NATURE OF CHARGES 42. During the trial, you will hear evidence alleging sex crimes against underage girls. Some of the evidence in this case will involve sexually suggestive or sexually explicit conduct. Is there anything about the nature of this case and the accusations as summarized at the beginning of this questionnaire that might make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case? Yes No 42a. If yes, please explain: 43. Do you have any specific views or feelings concerning laws regarding the age at which individuals can or cannot consent to sexual activity with other individuals that would affect your ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror? Yes No 43a. If yes, please explain: 44. Do you have any opinion about the enforcement of the federal sex trafficking laws or the federal laws concerning sex crimes against minors that might prevent you from being fair and impartial in this case? Yes No -22- DOJ-OGR-00020934 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page109 of 221 A-309 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 21 of 29 Juror ID: 50 44a. If yes, please explain: 45. Have you or a family member ever supported, lobbied, petitioned, protested, or worked in any other manner for or against any laws, regulations, or organizations relating to sex trafficking, sex crimes against minors, sex abuse, or sexual harassment? Yes No 45a. If yes, please explain when and what you or your family member did: 45b. If your answer to 45 was yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case? Yes No 45c. If yes to 45b, please explain: 46. The witnesses in this case may include law enforcement witnesses. Would you have any difficulty assessing the credibility of a law enforcement officer just like you would any other witness? Yes No 46a. If yes, please explain: -23- DOJ-OGR-00020935 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page112 of 221 A-312 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 24 of 29 Juror ID: 50 CLOSING QUESTION 51. Do you wish for any particular answers to remain confidential and to not go beyond the Judge, counsel, and the Defendant, because the answer would embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy? Yes No If yes, please list which question number(s): --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page113 of 221 A-313 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 25 of 29 Juror ID: 50 DECLARATION I, Juror Number 50 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing answers set forth in this Jury Questionnaire are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I have not discussed my answers with others, or received assistance in completing the questionnaire. Signed this 4th day of November, 2021 DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME. PLEASE SIGN USING YOUR JUROR NUMBER. -27- DOJ-OGR-00020939 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page115 of 221 A-315 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 27 of 29 Juror ID: 50 -29- DOJ-OGR-00020941 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page116 of 221 A-316 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 28 of 29 Juror ID: 50 -30- DOJ-OGR-00020942 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page117 of 221 A-317 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 638 Filed 03/09/22 Page 29 of 29 Juror ID: 50 -31- DOJ-OGR-00020943 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page203 of 221 A-403 28 M6SQmax1 your Honor. If the Court remembers the record evidence, there was some evidence of money moving, but it was to buy a helicopter that was not for her. We heard testimony from Larry Visoski that he often kept assets of cars in his name for Mr. Epstein. That doesn't make Larry Visoski a participant in the criminal endeavors. I think it's a stretch for the government to point to that as some sort of evidence of continued involvement or continued profit after the end date of the conspiracy. I just wanted to make that one point, your Honor. THE COURT: Anything on that, Ms. Moe? MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to the financial transaction, we offered that along with other evidence to refute the claim that the defendant had moved on, which, as we noted, is an expression that has no legal meaning. And so contrary to the assertion that the defendant had moved on and was no longer associated with Epstein, the trial evidence established that she remained a close associate for many years, and that is the purpose for which we offered that evidence. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you. I do want to address -- do you have other -- I want to ask about 3(b)(1). MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: I think it's for the government. So as I see the question here, the guidelines require me to find that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021029 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page204 of 221 A-404 M6SQmax1 29 1 the defendant was an organizer or leader, and that the criminal 2 activity either involved five or more participants or was 3 otherwise extensive. The guidelines defines a participant as a 4 person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the 5 offense but need not have been convicted. 6 So I think my question for the government is, you're 7 asking the Court to look to as a criminally responsible -- a 8 person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the 9 offense over whom Ms. Maxwell exercised supervisory or 10 leadership role. 11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. As we noted in our 12 briefing, our view is that the trial evidence establishes that 13 the defendant had a supervisory role over Sarah Kellen. Here, 14 we're not required to establish that there were five or more 15 participants; that is, people who were criminally responsible 16 for the charged conduct, but rather that it was extensive, and 17 that the defendant supervised at least one other person. 18 That's the text of the commentary, although as we noted, the 19 Second Circuit in applying this factor hasn't really engaged 20 with that from what we can tell, but on the factual question of 21 the trial record and whether it establishes the defendant 22 supervised another participant, it absolutely does. 23 THE COURT: And the government is pointing to Sarah 24 Kellen for that conclusion, which you agree, there has to be 25 one criminally responsible participant who we can point to. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021030 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page205 of 221 A-405 M6SQmax1 30 1 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Looking at the text of the 2 application note -- again, it's unclear from some case law on 3 this, but under the text of the application note, if we're 4 looking to one criminal participant, we would direct the 5 Court's attention to Sarah Kellen. 6 THE COURT: And the leadership over her as opposed to 7 Epstein being the leader over her or them being -- Kellen sort 8 of replacing the defendant's role, could you focus my mind on 9 what specifically you point to to show supervision and 10 leadership by Ms. Maxwell over Ms. Kellen. 11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 12 The trial evidence was that Sarah Kellen became an 13 assistant, and that she worked for both Maxwell and Epstein. 14 Essentially, when you look at defendant's role in earlier 15 years, she was doing things like calling victims and arranging 16 for massage appointments. As the scheme shifted, they brought 17 in another member of the scheme beneath them in the structure 18 and hierarchy of the scheme. The defendant remained a close 19 associate. She was often traveling with them, often traveling 20 with Kellen together. So as Kellen took on some of the tasks 21 that were then delegated to a lower member of the conspiracy, 22 the defendant was higher up in the leadership structure. 23 There wasn't direct evidence about, you know, the 24 defendant directly instructing Kellen to make a certain phone 25 call, and we acknowledge that, but we think the inference is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021031 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page206 of 221 A-406 M6SQmax1 31 1 very clear that when you have two knowing conspirators, Maxwell 2 and Epstein, and they bring in a much younger woman as an 3 assistant and have her take on some of those roles while the 4 defendant remains a lady of the house in the hierarchy of the 5 structure to whom a person like Sarah Kellen would report, that 6 she has leadership of that person; that she is directing that 7 person; that she has control. Even the simple task of 8 directing her to take on some of those responsibilities, which, 9 of course, to transition parts of that role she would have to 10 do would qualify for leadership. 11 THE COURT: And there's clear time overlap in the 12 role? 13 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. As we noted in our brief, 14 the flight records reflect that the defendant continued flying 15 on Epstein's private jet at the same time that Sarah Kellen was 16 also traveling, and that there was an overlap in the years of 17 the time period where they were all close associates of Jeffrey 18 Epstein and the scheme was ongoing. 19 THE COURT: Go ahead. 20 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Your Honor, before I address the 21 Sarah Kellen point, I would just make the point that the 22 government seems to argue that there is some case law that is 23 not clear that you don't have to necessarily show that they're 24 supervising another criminal participant. That's just wrong. 25 All those cases that the government cites, the issue has SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021032 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page207 of 221 A-407 M6SQmax1 1 already been decided or conceded by the defendant. The court 2 found they were leader or the defendant didn't contest that, so 3 the issue was only about whether the criminal activity was 4 otherwise extensive. So that is not -- that is clear under 5 Second Circuit law, that they have to supervise another 6 criminal participant, and it's clear from the guidelines too, 7 as the government concedes. 8 Let's just talk a bit about Sarah Kellen. I don't 9 think it is a fair inference to say from the trial record that 10 Ms. Maxwell was supervising Sarah Kellen. In fact, the 11 inference is exactly the opposite. And you can rely on 12 Carolyn's testimony alone for that; that she herself testified 13 that there was a clear break between when she says that 14 Ms. Maxwell was calling her to schedule for massage 15 appointments versus when Sarah Kellen took over and scheduled 16 for massage appointments. They did not overlap. There was a 17 break. That is corroborated by Juan Alessi no less, who said 18 the same thing. He said Sarah Kellen came at the end of my 19 employment, to his recollection, and as soon as she got there, 20 she took over the responsibility of scheduling the massage 21 appointments. Again, a clear break. 22 What the record shows is that there was a replacement. 23 Sarah Kellen replaced Ms. Maxwell, at least according to the 24 trial testimony; not that there was some sort of ongoing 25 supervision by Ms. Maxwell over Sarah Kellen. It couldn't be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021033 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page208 of 221 A-408 M6SQmax1 33 1 clearer, your Honor, this notion that she was somehow -- Sarah 2 Kellen was an assistant of both Epstein and Maxwell is again 3 belied by the trial record. 4 If you look at Larry Visoski's testimony, which I 5 believe is what the government is relying on there, he 6 originally testified, oh, I think she was an assistant for 7 both. But on cross-examination, he conceded that he really 8 didn't know what her role was, and his best recollection was 9 that she was an assistant for Epstein. 10 And again, just look again at Kimberley Espinosa's 11 testimony who was the actual assistant for Ms. Maxwell, and she 12 says unequivocally, "I was her assistant. Kellen was Epstein's 13 assistant." So there is no fair inference that Ms. Maxwell was 14 supervising Sarah Kellen. The inference is exactly the 15 opposite, and it can't provide a basis for that leadership 16 enhancement. 17 THE COURT: All right. Anything further on the 18 enhancements for the government's objection? 19 MS. MOE: Your Honor, just very briefly with respect 20 to the leadership question, I just want to direct the Court's 21 attention, we noted this on page 27 of our brief, but the 22 testimony at trial was that Carolyn recalled that even after 23 Sarah Kellen took over calling to schedule massages, Maxwell 24 was still present inside the Palm Beach residence when Carolyn 25 arrived for massage appointments. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021034 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page209 of 221 A-409 34 1 With respect to the testimony of the pilots who 2 testified, whether they -- whether an employee was paid by 3 Maxwell or Epstein or technically reported to one, according to 4 their job descriptions, is not the question here. The fact 5 that pilots based on their observation thought at one point 6 that Kellen reported to Maxwell proves the point that she had 7 supervisory authority over Kellen and exercised it, whether in 8 the chain of command or on their formal employment paperwork, 9 she was just an employee for one or the other, it makes no 10 difference. There was an overlap here. They had different 11 roles in the conspiracy, and the defendant had a supervisory 12 roll over Kellen. 13 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just to that point. Being 14 present does not mean that you're a supervisor. That's way too 15 far a stretch. So the fact that there was testimony she was 16 present still in the house while Kellen was making the calls 17 and scheduling the massage appointments means nothing in terms 18 of supervisory authority. 19 THE COURT: Thank you. Other enhancements before the 20 government's objection is to be addressed. 21 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. Thank you. 22 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I assume you don't want to 23 hear or have any questions about the five-point enhancement for 24 repeated and dangerous sex offenders. 25 THE COURT: I believe I have what I need, but as I SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021035 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page210 of 221 A-410 M6SQmax1 35 1 said, I don't need repetition of the arguments in the papers, 2 but if there is any additional points you want to make, you're 3 welcome to. 4 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just one point. I will be 5 brief. The government in its papers makes the argument that 6 the background commentary can't be relied upon as authoritative 7 because it is not explanatory or interpretative of what the 8 guideline is. I think that is incorrect. 9 It is not simply a recitation of what Congress was 10 considering. That first sentence or two which talks about how 11 this guideline can only be applied to offenders who represent a 12 continuing danger to the community is interpretative of what 13 the guideline is. The title of the guideline is repeat and 14 dangerous sex offenders. That explanatory commentary explains 15 how to interpret what dangerous means. It means someone who is 16 continuously dangerous to the community, not someone who's 17 never been accused of a crime in the 18 plus years since the 18 crime in this case, and has never been accused of re-offending. 19 So I don't agree with that point. This is authoritative 20 guidance from the Sentencing Commission, and the Court should 21 consider it as such. Thank you. 22 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, do you want to respond? 23 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We rest on our briefing on 24 this issue, but thank you. 25 THE COURT: Thank you. Anything else? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021036 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page211 of 221 A-411 36 M6SQmax1 1 MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. We rest on the papers. 2 THE COURT: I thank you counsel for your thorough 3 briefing. I am prepared to rule. 4 The defendant raises four objections to the 5 calculation of the guideline range contained in the PSR. As we 6 discussed, first, she argues I must apply the 2003 guidelines 7 rather than the 2004 guidelines. Beyond that, she objects to 8 the application of three sentencing enhancements. The 9 government's sole objection to the calculation of the guideline 10 range is that Virginia Roberts and Melissa should be considered 11 victims. So I will address the defense objections and then the 12 government's objections. 13 I begin by determining which of the Guideline manuals 14 apply. Generally, a sentencing court applies the version of the 15 guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is 16 sentenced. 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii). But the Ex Post 17 Facto Clause is violated if a defendant is sentenced under 18 Guidelines issued after she's committed her offense and the new 19 Guidelines provide a higher sentencing range than the version in 20 place at the time of the offense. That's the principle of a case 21 called Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (2013). In that 22 case, a sentencing court must -- in the case of a higher range at 23 the time of sentencing than in place at the time of the offense, 24 in that case the sentencing court must apply the guidelines in 25 effect when the offense was committed. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021037 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page212 of 221 A-412 M6SQmax1 1 United States v. Guerrero, 910 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2018). Here, 2 the parties and the probation department agree that applying 3 the current Guidelines would result in a significantly longer 4 sentence than the application of the guidelines in place when 5 the defendant committed her offense, whether that is the 2003 6 or 2004 guidelines. 7 The controlling date for ex post facto purposes is the last date of the offense of conviction. The 2004 Guidelines 8 became effective on November 1, 2004. So I must determine if 9 the last date of the offense was after November 1, 2004. 10 Because it seeks an increased punishment, the government bears the burden of persuasion. The government 11 charged a decade-long conspiracy of sexual abuse that the 12 indictment alleged ended in 2004. It's proof at trial that the 13 conspiracy continued in 2004 related to Carolyn. And the 14 charged conspiracy had to end no later than very early 2005 15 because that's when Carolyn turned 18 and can no longer be 16 deemed a victim of the federal sex-trafficking offense charged 17 which proscribes conduct with respect to individuals under the 18 age of 18. So the government purports to carry its burden on 19 this issue based on portions of Carolyn's testimony and some 20 message pads regarding what occurred in 2004 and 2005. 21 Let me state clearly, I found, as I said repeatedly in 22 my factual conclusions on the PSR objections, I found Carolyn 23 to be a credible witness, as did the jury. The question before SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021038 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page213 of 221 A-413 38 M6SQmax1 1 me is specific and highly technical. Does the preponderance of 2 the evidence demonstrate that the offense to sex traffic 3 Carolyn continued after November 1, 2004 before she turned 18 4 in early 2005? In other words, does a preponderance of the 5 evidence establish that acts in furtherance of the conspiracy 6 to traffic Carolyn occurred in either November or 7 December 2004? Although Carolyn testified regarding contact 8 earlier in 2004 and after she turned 18 in 2005, there is no 9 evidence, either in the form of testimony or documentary 10 evidence, including the message pads, that demonstrates by a 11 preponderance of the evidence conspiratorial conduct during 12 those last two months of 2004 before Carolyn turned 18 in 2005. 13 In those portions of Carolyn's testimony cited by the 14 government, Carolyn stated that she was 18 years old the last 15 time she went to Epstein's house, which would have been in 16 2005. As Carolyn further explained, she returned more than 17 four or five times to Epstein after she gave birth to her son 18 in March of 2004, and that testimony is supported by message 19 pads entered at trial that show Carolyn called Epstein several 20 times in the summer of 2004: Once in late April or early May 21 again on July 6, and again on July 30. When she did return to 22 Epstein, Carolyn testified Epstein asked if she had younger 23 friends, and she explained during her testimony that at 18 24 years old, she was too old for him. Carolyn wasn't asked, and 25 her testimony doesn't specifically address, whether she went to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.••• (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021039 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page214 of 221 A-414 39 M6SQmax1 1 Epstein's house after November 2004 before she turned 18. 2 Message pads entered at trial show contact only before 3 November 1. 4 The government's reliance on two additional pads that 5 were not entered into evidence doesn't change my analysis. The 6 first message GX-4B, it's undated, and the context does not 7 give sufficient confidence that it came after November 1. The 8 other message pad is dated March 1, 2005, which falls outside 9 the scope of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment, and 10 after Carolyn turned 18. Because I cannot on this record find 11 by a preponderance of the evidence that the offense continued 12 during that two-month window after November 1, 2004, and before 13 early 2005, I must apply the 2003 guidelines. Because I find 14 that the date of the offense was not after November 1, 2004, I 15 do not address the defendant's alternative argument that a jury 16 must decide if the 2004 Guidelines apply. 17 Within the Guidelines themselves, the defendant 18 objects to the application of three enhancements in the PSR. 19 She takes issue first with 4B1.5(b). The enhancement 20 statements that the offense level is increased by five if: 21 One, the offense of conviction is a covered sex crime; two, 22 4B1.5(a) for prior convictions does not apply; three, the 23 defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited 24 sexual conduct. All three requirements are met: The defendant 25 was convicted of a covered sex crime; she was not previously SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page215 of 221 A-415 M6SQmax1 1 convicted of a sex crime; and I readily find she engaged in a 2 pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. 3 Specifically, the Guidelines define a pattern of such activity 4 as the defendant engaging in prohibited sexual conduct with a 5 minor on at least two separate occasions. 6 The defendant doesn't contest any of these enumerated 7 requirements. Rather, she argues that I may apply this 8 enhancement only if I further find that the defendant poses a 9 continuing danger to the public. Here, the defense draws this 10 requirement from background commentary by the Sentencing 11 Commission and a few statements made by members of the Congress 12 who emphasized high recidivism rates in enhancing sentences 13 for sex offenders. 14 I overrule this objection because it lacks any basis 15 in the Guidelines. As with all interpretive matters, I start 16 with the text of the Guidelines. If the text is unambiguous, I 17 apply it as written and do not resort to background commentary. 18 United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005). Commentary 19 cited by the defendant simply provides policy rationale for a 20 particular enhancement. It does not purport to interpret the 21 Guidelines and so is not binding. Nor can scattered 22 legislative history override the clear text of the Guidelines, 23 especially when that history amounts to only a few short floor 24 statements which are "among the least illuminating forms of 25 legislative history." NLRB v. SW General, Inc. 137, S. Ct. 929 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021041 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page216 of 221 A-416 M6SQmax1 41 1 (2017). 2 Moreover, the defendant fails to prove that 4B1.5(b) 3 was enacted only to prevent future danger to the public. 4 Background commentary explains that aside from recidivism, 5 Congress "directed the Commission to ensure lengthy 6 incarceration for offenders who engage in a pattern of activity 7 involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of minors." That's 8 4B1.5 comment background. 9 Further, the legislative history quoted by the 10 defendant says that Congress increased Guidelines sentences for 11 sexual abuse of minors "to address the egregiousness of these 12 crimes." And, in fact, the defendant's brief cites that I 13 believe at 12. Thus, I find no basis for a requirement that I 14 must first find the defendant to be a public danger before 15 applying the enhancement. The defendant's remaining argument 16 that applying this enhancement would result in an excessive 17 sentence is appropriately considered as part of the defendant's 18 request for a downward variance. 19 Next the defendant objects to the application 20 3B1.1(a), which we've discussed, which adds four offense levels 21 for her leadership role in a criminal activity. "a court must 22 make two specific factual findings before it can properly 23 enhance a defendant's offense level under 3B1.1(a): (i) that 24 the defendant was an organizer or leader; and (ii) that the 25 criminal activity involved five or more participants or was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021042 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page217 of 221 A-417 M6SQmax1 42 1 otherwise extensive." Quoting from United States v. Patasnik, 2 89 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1996). The Guidelines define a participant 3 as a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of 4 the offense, but need not have been convicted. That's Section 5 3B1.1, comment note 1. And in assessing whether criminal 6 activity is extensive, all persons involved during the course 7 of the entire offense are to be considered, including persons 8 who provided services unknowingly. Comment note 3. 9 The defendant argues that she did not lead another 10 criminal participant. I overrule this objection because I do 11 conclude that the government has proved by a preponderance that 12 the defendant supervised Sarah Kellen, who was a knowing 13 participant in the criminal conspiracy. 14 Larry Visoski and David Rodgers both testified for 15 that at least part of the time period at issue Sarah Kellen 16 acted as a personal assistant to the defendant. I credit that 17 testimony which is corroborated by further testimony that the 18 defendant was Epstein's number two and the lady of the house. 19 At some point, Kellen took over some of the defendants duties. 20 But even after that time, the defendant retained her leadership 21 position, as evidenced by Carolyn's testimony, by flight 22 records in evidence, and the household manual in evidence. I 23 do conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the 24 defendant led a criminally responsible participant. 25 I further find that the defendant's criminal activity SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021043 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page218 of 221 A-418 M6s2Max2 100 1 appellate rights. You have the right to appeal your conviction 2 and your sentence. The notice of appeal must be filed within 3 14 days of the judgment of conviction. 4 Other matters to take up counsel? 5 MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank 6 you. 7 MS. STERNHEIM: No. Thank you. 8 THE COURT: Let me note, I will issue a housekeeping 9 order posttrial to ensure complete docketing of all -- any 10 outstanding materials and complete records, so please look for 11 that. I will issue the judgment -- I should just say, Ms. Moe, 12 the Court intends to indicate the end of the conspiracy date as 13 the last date in the record, which I believe is in July of 14 2004, of acts in furtherance of the criminal conduct, and 15 obviously the government took a different position with respect 16 to that. But in light of the Court's finding, any objection to 17 that? 18 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We will review the 19 exhibits. If that date is different from the sentencing 20 transcript, we will submit a letter to the Court, but otherwise 21 no objection, your Honor. 22 MS. STERNHEIM: No objection. 23 THE COURT: All right. 24 MS. MOE: With apologies, your Honor, with respect to 25 the judgment, in light of the Court's decision to impose an SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.... (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021044 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page219 of 221 A-419 M6 s2Max2 101 1 above-guidelines sentence and an above-guidelines fine, we 2 would respectfully request that the Court address both the 3 sentence and the fine in the Court's statement of reasons. 4 THE COURT: Yeah, I actually -- guideline range, let 5 me just check. I meant to talk about that. I'm not sure it is 6 an above-guidelines, but it may be since, as we know, I read 7 over five to mean five. So maybe I got that wrong. Let me 8 just check. 9 Oh, you are right. It is 20 to 200,000 for each 10 count. Do I have that right? 11 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. 12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 13 I want to thank counsel. As I indicated, I do thank 14 the victims who made statements in writing or orally and their 15 counsel who supported them in that endeavor. I thank counsel 16 for Ms. Maxwell and counsel for the government. 17 We are adjourned. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021045 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page220 of 221 A-420 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 697 Filed 07/07/2022 USDOSDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 7/7/2022 Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A NOTICE OF APPEAL United States District Court Southern District of New York Caption: United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell Docket No. S2 20 Cr. 330 Alison J. Nathan (SBD) (District Court Judge) Notice is hereby given that Ghislaine Maxwell appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment , other entered in this action on 6/29/2022 (date) This appeal concerns: Conviction only Sentence only Conviction & Sentence Other Defendant found guilty by plea trial N/A Offense occurred after November 1, 1987? Yes No N/A Date of sentence: 6/28/2022 N/A Bail/Jail Disposition: Committed Not committed N/A Appellant is represented by counsel? Yes No If yes, provide the following information: Defendant's Counsel: Bobbi C. Sternheim, Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim Counsel's Address: 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007 Counsel's Phone: 212-243-1100 Assistant U.S. Attorney: Maurene Comey AUSA's Address: One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007 AUSA's Phone: 212-637-2324 Signature * FOR FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL ONLY ** NOT RETAINED FOR REPRESENTATION ON APPEAL DOJ-OGR-00021046