juror
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
defendant
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
relative or close friend
|
Friend |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
victims
|
Shared experience |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
attorney
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
trial participants
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
unidentified speaker
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
therapist
|
Doctor patient |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
juror
|
Peers co deliberators |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
judicial officer
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Brune
|
Investigative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | The Trial | Court | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Voir dire, the process of jury selection, is discussed. | Court (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A post-verdict hearing was held where a trial court found a juror demonstrated bias. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | A juror in the Ashfar case was sexually assaulted by a babysitter when he was five or six years o... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal action | In the cited case of Torres, the district court struck a juror for cause because she had engaged ... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Trial | The document is a questionnaire for potential jurors for an upcoming trial involving Ghislaine Ma... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | A period of jury deliberation during which a conversation between Schoeman and Trzaskoma took place. | Court | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | The document describes the rules and procedures for the jury's deliberation process to reach a ve... | Jury room (implied) | View |
| N/A | Jury selection (voir dire) | A series of questions are posed to potential jurors to assess their impartiality and potential bi... | court | View |
| N/A | Jury selection | A questionnaire is being used to vet potential jurors for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, specifically as... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Juror questioning | A juror was asked about a question on his juror questionnaire regarding whether he had been a vic... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Jury deliberation | The jury is instructed on the procedures for beginning their deliberations, including electing a ... | jury room | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial about child sexual abuse where a juror allegedly made misstatements. | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror made public statements about his traumatic experiences. | Public | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror participation in trial | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Juror posted on social media about serving on the jury and communicated with witness Annie Farmer. | Twitter (Online) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Filling out of jury questionnaire where the juror felt rushed. | Court / Jury Assembly Room | View |
| N/A | N/A | Daily trial proceedings requiring attendance from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. | Courthouse | View |
| N/A | N/A | Judge restarted jury deliberations due to juror illness | Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | A trial concerning alleged sex crimes against underage girls, involving sexually suggestive or ex... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Discussion of the legal doctrine of 'inferred bias' in the context of jury selection and dismissa... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A hearing where a juror gave answers about childhood abuse. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Crime | A juror in the Sampson case had been threatened by her husband with a gun, which she did not disc... | N/A | View |
| 2025-11-29 | Trial | The expected period for the criminal trial, for which the potential juror's availability is being... | courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014854.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, and confirms that the statute of limitations was not violated. The document also notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000 and denied a new trial regarding juror conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00008621.jpg
This document is a page of jury instructions from a legal case, filed on December 18, 2021. A judge is instructing the jury on the procedures for reaching and reporting a verdict, emphasizing that it must be unanimous and that deliberations must be kept confidential. The judge also reminds the jurors to be courteous to one another and announces a brief sidebar conference with counsel before the case is formally submitted to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00008619.jpg
This document is a legal instruction (No. 59) for a jury in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 18, 2021. It outlines the procedures for jury deliberation, including the election of a foreperson, the formal process for communicating with the court via written notes, and rules regarding the use of personal notes taken during the trial. The instructions emphasize that the foreperson acts as a communicator without extra authority and that all jurors' recollections of evidence are paramount.
DOJ-OGR-00008449.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal because the core information is already public. It outlines significant logistical challenges and potential delays associated with making materials like binders and slides accessible to the public in real-time. As a compromise, the parties have agreed to release the demonstrative materials for public review after the arguments are concluded.
DOJ-OGR-00008440.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 19, 2021, argues that the public interest in viewing the parties' presentation slides during closing arguments is minimal, as the content is already largely public. It highlights significant logistical concerns and potential delays that would arise from making the slides public in real-time, such as managing binders and toggling monitors. The parties have instead agreed to make the demonstratives available for public review after the arguments are complete.
DOJ-OGR-00008250.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 8, 2021. An unidentified court official, likely a judge, outlines the schedule and procedures for the jury selection process (voir dire). The official details the daily schedule, including breaks and end times, and explains how individual jurors will be questioned, with provisions for handling sensitive or embarrassing information confidentially at sidebar and sealing relevant portions of the transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00021071.jpg
This document is page 24 of an appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) arguing two main points: first, that the statute of limitations had expired for the offenses charged because the 2003 amendment to §3283 cannot be applied retroactively to offenses committed before its enactment. Second, it argues for a new trial based on juror misconduct, specifically that a juror lied on a questionnaire to conceal his own history as a victim of child sexual abuse, which the defense argues established bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021064.jpg
This document is a 'Statement of the Issues Presented for Review' from an appellate brief (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023). It outlines four main legal arguments for appeal: the misapplication of a non-prosecution agreement, errors regarding statutes of limitations, juror misconduct involving concealed history of sexual abuse, and a constructive amendment of the indictment regarding venue (New Mexico vs. New York) and state law.
DOJ-OGR-00020957.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court order (Document 653) filed on April 1, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text analyzes legal standards for investigating juror misconduct, specifically whether a juror lied during voir dire and the limitations imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 606 regarding inquiring into jury deliberations. It cites various precedents (McCoy, Nix, Tanner) to establish the boundaries of a 'McDonough inquiry' into juror bias.
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00009201.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 616) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on February 24, 2022. It is a defense argument stating that Ghislaine Maxwell is entitled to a new trial because a juror failed to disclose childhood sexual abuse during voir dire, which would have been grounds for dismissal for cause. The text refutes the government's arguments regarding 'finality' and cites case law (Parker, Martinez-Salazar, Nelson) to argue that the presence of a biased juror constitutes a structural error requiring reversal.
DOJ-OGR-00009184.jpg
This document is a legal exhibit from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-RA), filed on February 24, 2022. It consists of a screenshot of a Daily Mail Online article featuring a photograph of Maxwell and Epstein, with a caption stating she faced six sex trafficking counts based on the stories of four victims. The document is marked with the identifier DOJ-OGR-00009184.
DOJ-OGR-00009142.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 615) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on February 24, 2022. The text argues against the defendant's motion claiming juror bias, specifically discussing the legal standards for 'actual bias' versus 'implied' or 'inferable' bias in a post-trial context. The Government argues that actual bias is the only relevant inquiry and cites various legal precedents (Torres, Greer, Smith v. Phillips) to support the position that the defendant's arguments are unpersuasive.
DOJ-OGR-00009106.jpg
This document is a single page (page 9 of 10) from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the voir dire examination of a prospective juror who confirms they do not listen to podcasts or follow criminal cases in the news. The juror affirms their ability to be fair and impartial to both sides, and both Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim decline to ask further questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009103.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a jury selection process (voir dire) filed on February 24, 2022. A judge questions a prospective juror to determine their ability to be impartial, specifically asking about potential biases concerning law enforcement, defense lawyers, the justice system, and wealthy individuals. The juror consistently affirms their ability to be fair and impartial, stating they have no such biases.
DOJ-OGR-00009101.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) recording the voir dire process of a prospective juror. The Court confirms the juror has not discussed the case, checks their availability for a six-week trial starting November 29, and asks them to review lists of names and entities to check for conflicts of interest or familiarity. The juror indicates they have no familiarity with the names or entities presented.
DOJ-OGR-00008979.jpg
This document is the signature page (page 2) of a Motion to Intervene filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) on February 24, 2022, though dated January 10, 2022. Attorney Todd A. Spodek represents an unnamed male Applicant seeking to intervene in the matter. The text references an inquiry into a juror and a deadline for the juror's counsel to file a briefing by January 26, 2022.
DOJ-OGR-00013293.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Sternheim (Defense), and Mr. Rohrbach (Government) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824, identified as insurance cards). The Judge cites *United States v. Lieberman* as relevant case law while the court waits for a delayed juror.
DOJ-OGR-00010355.jpg
This document is page 32 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the legal standard for 'implied bias' in jurors, specifically rejecting the argument that a juror must be presumed biased solely because they have personal experiences similar to the issues litigated at trial (referencing sexual abuse, though the specific nature is implied by the case context). The court cites Second Circuit precedents (Torres, Brown, Garcia) to support the ruling that implied bias is an 'intentionally narrow category.'
DOJ-OGR-00010336.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court order filed on April 1, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text analyzes a motion regarding juror misconduct, specifically discussing the 'McDonough' test. The Court concludes that the juror's false answers during voir dire were not deliberate and that the second prong of the legal test was not satisfied. It also defines legal standards for actual, implied, and inferable bias.
DOJ-OGR-00010325.jpg
This legal document discusses a case where a juror was questioned under oath and the penalty of perjury. The court inquired about the juror's answers and whether they were false. The document references Federal Rule of Evidence 606, Supreme Court, and Second Circuit law.
DOJ-OGR-00009801.jpg
This document is the preliminary statement of a memorandum filed by the United States Government on March 11, 2022, opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for a new trial. The Government argues that Maxwell has failed to meet the heavy burden required to prove juror misconduct during voir dire. The text cites legal precedents to support the finality of trials and argues the motion should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00009794.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a jury selection process (voir dire) filed on March 24, 2022. The court questions a potential juror to assess their impartiality, covering potential biases towards law enforcement, criminal defense lawyers, the justice system, and wealthy individuals. The juror consistently affirms their ability to be fair and impartial, stating they have no biases that would interfere with their duties.
DOJ-OGR-00009793.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a judge questioning a potential juror for a case involving Ms. Maxwell. The juror states their only prior knowledge of Ms. Maxwell came from a CNN news report about Jeffrey Epstein's death, which mentioned he had a girlfriend. The juror affirms their ability to disregard this prior information and judge the case solely on the evidence presented in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009404.jpg
This document is page 343 of a deposition transcript involving a witness named Edelstein (likely regarding the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the context of juror misconduct). The testimony details legal strategy discussions between Edelstein and Susan Brune regarding a juror who shared a name with a suspended lawyer. They discussed how to address their knowledge of this potential identity match in a legal brief drafted by Theresa Trzaskoma.
Unknown
A note received in court used as a timeline anchor.
No Subject
A note from a juror, the receipt of which is used as a time marker in the questioning.
respondeat superior and vicarious liability
A juror sent a note to the court that included the legal terms 'respondeat superior' and 'vicarious liability'.
respondeat superior and vicarious liability
A juror sent a note to the court that included the legal terms 'respondeat superior' and 'vicarious liability'.
juror letter
A 'juror letter' is mentioned, the receipt of which is a time marker for when certain facts were learned.
respondeat superior and vicarious liability
A juror sent a note to the court that referred to the legal concepts of respondeat superior and vicarious liability.
Desiree Washington's Credibility
Statement regarding loss of belief in the accuser and regret over conviction.
Therapy and stress
Stated they see a therapist regularly who helped with stress from the case.
Memory of abuse
Quote regarding vivid memory of sexual abuse.
Jury Selection Questionnaire
Juror filled out a questionnaire regarding knowledge of the case.
Unknown
Reference to receiving 'the juror note'.
Jury Selection / Voir Dire
The Court questions a juror about their exposure to case information, availability for a six-week trial starting Nov 29, and familiarity with lists of names and entities involved in the case.
Train Delay
Juror called worried about being late due to a train issue; court advised them to get there safely.
Voir Dire Questioning
The Court asks the juror about radio/podcast habits, hobbies, following criminal cases, charitable contributions, and their ability to be fair and impartial.
Jury Selection / Voir Dire
Reference to previous questioning that occurred on November 16 regarding bias.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity