[c/o Inner City Press]
[Extra details in comments c/o Adam Klasfeld]
Previous Updates
- 29 Nov https://greatawakening.win/p/140c066vhu/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates/ https://archive.ph/UJvbk
- 30 Nov https://greatawakening.win/p/140c4iFhTt/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-n/ https://archive.ph/CP0IO
- 1 Dec https://greatawakening.win/p/140c4mlM5Q/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/kvjoj
- 2 Dec https://greatawakening.win/p/140c9NlRh7/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/5iA5T
- 3 Dec https://greatawakening.win/p/140c9UZGeQ/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/oaWCx
- Dec 6 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cEEenfZ/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/c9JTx
- Dec 7 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cIpe4Sk/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/GVLLE
- Dec 8 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cNSufvZ/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/7bpQm
- Dec 9 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cNWKPqr/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/9eoge
- Dec 10 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cNbyjpQ/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/vtJad
- Dec 16 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cbdiEfR/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/nnLTW
- Dec 17 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cgDZeuD/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/0bQpB
- Dec 18 https://greatawakening.win/p/140cgKMemc/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/tjHfO
- Dec 20 https://greatawakening.win/p/140vMGPwq0/ghislaine-maxwell-case-updates-d/ https://archive.md/nQZdr
1510GMT
Judge Nathan took to the bench at 10:10 am and said, I've gotten a note. The jury wants the transcripts of the testimony of Jane, Annie and Carolyn. It will be assembled and sent to them via the Court Security Officer, who's been sworn in for this function.
Courtroom is empty again; three long transcripts going back to jury. For now, Inner City Press has objection and uploaded the (partially redacted) US Attorney's Office slides from yesterday's closing argument: https://t.co/1nMkYYL5C1
With the jury asking for the entire testimony of three of the four survivor witnesses, could be a long day.
As of 11 am, current status in Courtroom 318: empty, but sitting at defense table are Maxwell's official lawyer Bobbi Sternheim and unofficial / undocketed lawyer or photo-fixer Leah Saffian.
The jury went to their deliberation room for an hour yesterday, but I'm not sure that should really be called deliberation. Today, three hours so far, and clearly deliberating - they're request the testimony of three witnesses.
1755GMT
Still no prosecutors at their table, now 2 (or 3, counting Saffian) Maxwell counsel at theirs, no more notes from jury. In the lull, Inner City Press uploaded the redacted defense closing sides initially withheld: https://t.co/fGHqOi4Zwt
1822GMT
They have brought Ghislaine Maxwell out to the defense table. The other, listed counsel scatter and Gislaine is talking one on one with Leah Saffian. No In-N-Out Burger photo can be taken in the courtroom. But something is afoot. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHJr-9YXwAUfJfD?format=jpg
Just to tamp down expectation from this "afoot-ness" --Maxwell has been taken back in the holding cell. The burst of action, sources neither prosecution or defense say, was to agree on redactions on the testimony to be given to the jury (sidebars out, etc.)
1951GMT
Courtroom 318 is populating again; word is, there is a jury note. Ghislaine Maxwell has been brought out again. Judge Nathan: I have a note. "We would like the FBI deposition 3505-005 referred to by the defense."
AUSA: That is not in evidence.
Maxwell's lawyer: There is impeachment [of Carolyn] in that document, although we acknowledge it is not in evidence. So we proposed not saying, It is not in evidence.
Judge Nathan: How about, All admitted exhibits are before you?
AUSA: Fine.
Maxwell's lawyer: Why not say, You have the admitted evidence about 3505-005. Just don't say it is not in evidence.
Judge Nathan: They are asking for the document, I presume because they have the testimony about it. [Pauses to write something out by hand]
Judge Nathan: It is not an exhibit, the testimony about it, you have. I'll just send in a note for efficiency. I'll say: "3505-005 is not an admitted exhibit but the testimony about it," you have.
Agreed. All rise!
2023GMT
Maxwell's lawyers wanted Judge Nathan to come back, and she has. Maxwell's lawyer wants a copy of the note.
Judge Nathan: The foreperson has signed the note. So we have to redact it. So I will just read it to you again.
Judge Nathan: Counsel are aware of the identity of the jurors. So I'll just redact it as to the public.
All rise!
2106GMT
Judge Nathan: I have received a note. The jurors say they want to end today at 5pm (2200GMT), deliberate tomorrow from 9 to 4:30 (1400 to 2130) & have lunch at noon. [And if not decision by the end of Dec 22?]
Judge Nathan: It is possible for them to deliberate on Thursday.
Maxwell's lawyer Sternheim: Will you offer then Thursday, so they can make arrangement?
Judge Nathan: We could tell them that.
[If memory serves, the defense did not want the deliberations to take place under the deadline of Christmas. Now, they seem to like it]
2130GMT
Jury has another note / question: Can we consider Annie's testimony conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts 1 and 3?
AUSA: Say yes.
Maxwell's lawyer: If someone asks, can I drive, you could answer, Yes but within the speed limit.
Judge Nathan: I'm going to answer, Yes you may. Please been back at 4:55 (2155GMT) so we can let the jurors go at 5 pm (2200GMT).
here is a photo - screenshot - of the Count 1 and 3 the jury asked about, if they can use Annie's testimony to confirm under these counts: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHKc4jtXIAI8zM5?format=png
2203GMT
Jury enters
Judge Nathan: The timing tomorrow is fine, give Ms. Williams your lunch order on the way out. If you have not completed your deliberations it's possible for you to continue your deliberation on Dec 23. And, wear your masks except eating or drinking
Jury leaves
Judge Nathan: So did you finally finish agreeing on the redactions to the transcript?
AUSA: Yes.
Judge Nathan: It was frustrating to have them wait for 3 hours. Adjourned.
Court adjourned
[Extra details c/o Adam Klasfeld]
The first full day of jury deliberations begins in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell.
In an interview yesterday, I was asked about an instruction given to the jury in considering their verdict: "conscious avoidance."
To be clear:
The claims against Maxwell are NOT that she avoided knowledge of alleged crimes.
Maxwell is accused of facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors. Three accusing witnesses testified that she touched their breasts.
If the jury accepts the defense's efforts to distance Maxwell from Epstein, however, this charge could become significant.
Now, jurors have been instructed to consider whether she was "willfully blind" to what was going on—and multiple witnesses called her Epstein's "No. 2."
Jurors will then need to be asked whether Ghislaine Maxwell, described by two of Epstein's ex-pilots under oath as his "No. 2" and by his ex-house manager as the "lady of the house," knew what the late sex offender was up to.
Jurors will then need to be asked whether Ghislaine Maxwell, described by two of Epstein's ex-pilots under oath as his "No. 2" and by his ex-house manager as the "lady of the house," knew what the late sex offender was up to.
The first major trial that I ever covered in the legal beat hinged upon the concept of conscious avoidance: the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings case of Ahmed Ghailani, the first Guantánamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court - Right here in the Southern District of New York.
The defense in that case was that Ghailani was an unsophisticated errand used by hardened terrorists to obtain the bomb-making materials.
Their summations went: "Ahmed did not know."
Jurors acquitted on more than 200 counts and convicted on one—leading to his life sentence.
There was a jury note in that case seeking guidance on the concept of conscious avoidance.
The instructions may seem like arcane legalese, but believe me, 12 jurors can and do pay attention to this stuff.
Time will tell how they assess this case. The only correct answer in response to the question "When will the verdict come down?" in this or any other case:
¯_(ツ)_/¯
Just a follow-up point:
All of this makes things significantly harder for Maxwell. "Conscious avoidance" charges are quite common — and the bane of defense attorneys.
Ghislaine Maxwell's prosecutors and defense attorneys returned to their tables.
Judge Nathan enters: "I have a note."
"We would like the transcripts/testimony of 'Jane,' Annie and Carolyn."
The judge says that she'll note stating they're getting the transcripts ready and will send them into the jury room.
Upshot:
They want to look at a broad swath of evidence: all of the testimony of all the alleged victims.
(Remember: "Kate," whose transcript they did not request, is not Maxwell's alleged victim, per the judge's instruction.)
Only seen by jurors yesterday, the slides shown during the closings in Ghislaine Maxwell's trial have been released.
On the left, a representative slide from the prosecution's summation—a long, enduring relationship. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHJlPGXXwAIbLs-?format=jpg
On the right, the defense's—attacking plaintiffs' lawyers. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHJlP7mX0AQnNgN?format=jpg
Interesting sleight of hand on the defense chart, attacking testimony by Annie Farmer: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHJnEixWUAAEpiY?format=jpg
The highlighted text supporting the claim on the slide's title is the defense's attorney's question.
Farmer's answers, not highlighted, contradict the premise of the questions.
Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers know how to hammer home a theme.
(More defense slides—It goes on like this for four more slides.)
Jurors want to scrutinize an FBI note from Carolyn's interview in 2007.
Here's the thing:
Notes from FBI interviews are NOT evidence. Jurors want to know the basis of Carolyn's cross-examination, showing they appear to be engaging with the defense here. Jurors appear also to have some confusion about the role about FBI 302s.
[NECESSARY DISCLAIMER: It is generally counterproductive to read the tea leaves from jury notes, which represent snapshots from their deliberations. We don't know what inside the note sparked the debate. That said, they do provide a window into what they're scrutinizing.]
Also, the phrasing of the court's instruction makes clear that the document that jurors requested is not an admitted exhibit, but the testimony alluding to it is before them.
Essentially, jurors want to scrutinize the FBI's notes of unrecorded interviews that are not verbatim transcripts, which are unable to be entered into evidence because they cannot be authenticated.
In fact, jurors called it an FBI "deposition" — which it isn't. They're unauthenticated notes. That confusion would appear to benefit the defense, suggesting at least one of them is giving it the weight of one.
After the proceedings regarding this note, Maxwell's lawyer Bobbi Sternheim appeared to be smiling ear to ear in a conversation with someone in the front of the gallery.
Maxwell also appeared to be more upbeat than when she entered.
Final note:
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan sent back an instruction: "All admitted exhibits are before you," along with a reminder that the testimony about the FBI notes are before them. Perhaps we'll see if that dispels any confusion.
Another jury note:
"We would like to end today at 5 p.m. (2200GMT)"
They want to work tomorrow at 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m (1400 to 2130). and have lunch at "12 noon (1700GMT), if possible."
Judge Nathan raises the possibility of Thursday deliberations.
To be absolutely clear: Jurors will not see those FBI notes, which are not in evidence. Carolyn's testimony is key to the top count of sex trafficking.
New jury note:
“Can we consider Annie [Farmer]’s testimony as conspiracy to commit a crime in counts one and three?”
AUSA Comey: A one-word answer would be correct here. The government’s proposal is “Yes.”
Judge Nathan appears to agree.
The jury will receive this reply:
"I received your note. The answer is: yes, you may consider it."