Ghislaine Maxwell Case Updates Dec 29 (Day 19: Jury Deliberations 5)

posted 2 years ago by dem6nic 2 years ago by dem6nic +19 / -0

[c/o Inner City Press ]

[Extra details in comments c/o Adam Klasfeld]

Previous Updates

1431GMT

Jury deliberating under threat of continuing into New Years Eve & Day due to Omicron (but no public call-in line), the lawyers are assembled, Ghislaine Maxwell is at defense table.

Ghislaine Maxwell is in a maroon sweater. Judge Nathan is still not on the bench, but word is, There is a jury note. They resumed at 9am (1400GMT), so a note by 9:33am (1433GMT) is relatively early. For them. Comparatively.

Judge Nathan: I have a note. Can we please have the transcripts for Shawn, Cimberly Espinosa, then a name I can't read. Then Amanda Young, then Jason Richards. Also, can we have clarification about our schedules? 12/31? 1/1? There's a conflict I'll do at sidebar

[Judge Nathan goes off-the-record at sidebar. Meanwhile, clearly the jurors picked up on Judge Nathan's unstated threat yesterday about "all week" including by implication New Years Eve - and maybe New Years Day. The noted added, So we can plan... While the lawyers are at sidebar whispering with Judge Nathan, Ghislaine Maxwell is alone at the defense table, rummaging through her green plastic accordion file. The two Marshals are watching her closely]

Judge Nathan returns: Beyond the private matter, we still can't read the name of the fifth person they want the testimony of. So I'll send them a note asking. I'll step down to do that.

All rise!

1457GMT

Judge Nathan is back and asks the lawyers how to respond on scheduling, mentioning 1/2 (the Sunday) too.

Defense wants them to have the weekend off. Judge Nathan, not so much. Only if "unmovable commitments."

Judge Nathan: Given my concern about Omicron, quarantine for 10 days, we need to proceed every day.

AUSA: We agree, every day absent a hardship.

Judge Nathan: So I'm going to tell them, Yes, 12/31, 1/1 and 1/2 unless you reach a verdict. Unless unmovable conflict.

Another note: "We are requesting the testimony of the expert witness on memory." [Elizabeth Loftus, of Harvey Weinstein (and other) fame]

Judge Nathan: This is Court Exhibit 19.

[Inner City Press asked these be put on PACER - they have not been]

There's a dispute about redacting part of the testimony of Cimberly Espinosa.

Judge Nathan: She said, Seems like they started dating other people, Ghislaine just moved on. Then there was an objection. Let's be sure we send the right one back.

1509GMT

Judge Nathan: Anything else for now?

Both: No.

All rise!

[Note: I think this is an important issue: courts are supposed to be transparent to the public, and during this trial a person covering it was not allowed into the courthouse, with Omicron cited. So there should be a call-in line. Immediately. Today. Why isn't there?]

1609GMT

In the lull, from the Miami Herald: Liz Stein "was denied entry and told by a U.S. Marshal that no seats had been set aside in the court for victims. The office of U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan, who is presiding over the trial, declined to comment"

Inner City Press did see some of the back-and-forth in 318 [just as it earlier saw Leah Saffian move into the well of the courtroom with her phone] - but 1 question here is the US Attorney's Office using approval by Epstein Fund as proxy for being a victim.

It seems the position of SDNY - the court, not the prosecutors - is that all victims can get a seat in the courtroom. But who determines who the victims are? Some of these decisions, Judge Nathan seems to be passing the buck on. Who decided to redact flight logs?

How does Leah Saffian have her phone in the courtroom? She has not filed a "notice of appearance" in US v. Maxwell, & has no other case in SDNY. But has phone, shows it to Kevin &, some say, Ghislaine. Is there some Judge Nathan order?

There is a way to apply to bring electronic devices in - and it is supposed to be in the public docket. (See one such request in this US v. Maxwell case: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FHyiGisXEAAGk3U?format=jpg ). But in the docket, no mention of Leah Saffian - no notice of appearance, no pro hac vice, nothing.

It seems that to be part of the defense team, Leah Saffian would have to file a notice of appearance and be listed in the docket. But she is not. Maybe they asked Judge Nathan to sign an "electronic devices" order. But if so, it should be in the docket. It is not.

[Reply from beyondreasdoubt: Incorrect. An attorney can apply and get an electronic services pass. So if for example, I were sitting in the courtroom with you right now, I would have my phone. You’re good, but need to realize you don’t necessarily know the ins and outs and sometimes mislead your followers.

Reply to beyondreasdoubt: Thanks. Not only is Leah Saffian not listed as one of Maxwell's 5 lawyers in this case - she does not appear as an attorney in any SDNY case. So just to be clear, are you saying that any lawyer, from any state, can bring a phone into the SDNY courthouse? Thanks.]

Further on Leah Saffian - & maybe she'll find some defenders or obfuscators for this, too - without being listed as one of Maxwell's 5 lawyers in this case, she went into "the well" and sat at defense table. Others say they saw her sharing her phone with Maxwell.

Leah Saffian, having done the search, is not listed as admitted to the bar in New York. Nor has an pro hac vice been filed. Yet there she is, in the well of Courtroom 318, at the defense talk with her phone, talking with Ghislaine. Totally normal?

Since Leah Saffian does not show up as a New York attorney, and is not admitted pro hac vice in this or any other SDNY case, how does she get the electronic service pass? Or is there a signed order, & if so, given restrictions on the overflow rooms, where is it?

I'm just saying, given the restrictions in this case - no use of electronics by journalists or public in Courtroom 318, no public call-in line - the unexplained Saffian phone, at the defense table, for Maxwell is a question.

I asked officials here if it is permissible to share a smart phone with an incarcerated defendant and was told, No. Also that she should not have been in the well of the court (she was, at the defense table) while others were admonished & nearly more for the same.

Leah Saffian is not listed as one of Maxwell's 5 lawyers in this case. And I have seen CJA defense lawyers admonished in Mag Court for sharing phone with their clients. But again, Saffian is not Maxwell's lawyer here.

1912GMT

Bobbi Sternheim is at the defense table, and there's word that's another jury note.

Judge Nathan assumes the bench and says... "May we please have the Larry Visoski testimony."

There's laughter in the courtroom.

Judge Nathan: It's court exhibit 20.

[Leaves bench.]

[I think because, with the pressure to reach a verdict, it is an almost comical let-down to have the jury note after some hours be only for 1 more witness' testimony. I'm not saying it was uproarious laughter. It functioned like a groan, but came out like laughter]

2153GMT

ALERT: There is a verdict, soon to be read out.

"A verdict has been reached in US vs. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (AJN)... Please be advised that a verdict has been reached in the above matter. The verdict will be announced in open court shortly."

Judge Nathan: I am going to read the verdict after the jury comes in. Anyone in the courtroom who makes noise will be removed. Bring in the jury.

Verdict Sheet here: https://t.co/6QwMZH4byO

Jury enters

[In the front row of Courtroom 318: Leah Saffian, Kevin Maxwell, the two sisters, Isabelle and Christine]

Judge Nathan: Have your reached your verdict?

Foreperson: We have.

Judge Nathan (opens envelope) -

Count 1: GUILTY.

Count 2: Not Guilty.

Count 3: Guilty.

Count 4: Guilty.

Count 5: Guilty.

Count 6: Guilty.

Ghislaine Maxwell GUILTY of 5 of 6 counts

[For those asking, this is the ONLY count Maxwell was found not guilty on: "COUNT TWO: Enticement of an Individual Under the Age of 17 (Jane only) to Travel with Intent to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity." https://t.co/6QwMZH4byO ]

Bobbi Sternheim: We want an order to get Ms. Maxwell the booster.

Judge Nathan: It is available at MDC. Sentencing date will be chosen later after the parties confer.

5 comments

5 comments share save hide report block hide replies

Comments (5)

sorted by:

▲ 3 ▼

– dem6nic [S] 3 points 2 years ago +3 / -0

[Extra details c/o Adam Klasfeld]

We're back for the sixth day of deliberations in the Ghislaine Maxwell case—or the start of the fifth full day, depending on how you're counting. The jury ended yesterday announcing "we are making progress."

Judge Nathan reads a new Ghislaine Maxwell jury note.

"May we please have the following transcripts:"

Shawn
Cimberly Espinosa
Amanda Young
Jason Richards

Also one name she didn't read. Of note:

This appears to be the first time they requested transcripts of defense witness testimony.

Espinosa was an ex-assistant at J. Epstein & Co.

Young and Richards are FBI agents called by the defense.

Shawn was Carolyn's ex-boyfriend, called by the prosecution. The remaining (unread) name was apparently illegible. Judge Nathan is seeking clarification from the jury.

The jury also wants to know whether they're being asked to deliberate on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.

Judge Nathan said that her "inclination" is to say, “Yes, you will continue deliberations as needed, every day, going forward.”

That includes New Year's Eve, New Year's Day and the following Sunday, she adds.

The jury clarifies the illegible name on the note: "We are requesting the transcript of the expert witness on memory."

That's Elizabeth Loftus, Judge Nathan notes.

Another Ghislaine Maxwell jury note:

"May we please have the Larry Visoski transcript."

That means they're scrutinizing the testimony of both former Jeffrey Epstein pilots.

Judge Nathan: "We have a verdict."

A jury has found Ghislaine Maxwell

Count 1: Guilty

Count 2: Not Guilty

Count 3: Guilty

Count 4: Guilty

Count 5: Guilty

Count 6: Guilty

Virginia Giuffre, whose civil lawsuit helped spark Ghislaine Maxwell’s prosecution, responds to the verdict:

"My soul yearned for justice for years and today the jury gave me just that. I will remember this day always.

Having lived with the horrors of Maxwell’s abuse, my heart goes out to the many other girls and young women who suffered at her hands and whose lives she destroyed.

I hope that today is not the end but rather another step in justice being served. Maxwell did not act alone. Others must be held accountable. I have faith that they will be."

permalink save report block reply