Revisions | The Great Awakening - Where We Go Qne, We Go All!

Reason: None provided.

[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.

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."

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: Updated

[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.

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."

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: Updated

[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.

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.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: Updated

[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.

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.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: Updated

[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.

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.

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: Updated

[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.

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.)

2 years ago

1 score

Reason: Original

[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.

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

2 years ago

1 score