A trial juror whose post-verdict revelation that he suffered child sex abuse has jeopardised British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction may receive immunity to give evidence before the judge mulling whether the verdict will stand.
Prosecutors said in a submission to US District Judge Alison J Nathan on Wednesday that they were in the process of seeking approvals to offer immunity to the man to compel his testimony at a hearing next Tuesday.
They said the immunity offer was considered after the juror’s lawyer told the judge that his client planned to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at the hearing.
Maxwell, 60, remains behind bars after she was convicted of charges including sex trafficking and conspiracy at a month-long trial that featured testimony from four women who testified about Maxwell’s role in the recruitment of teenage girls for financier Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse from 1994 to 2004.
Epstein, 66, took his own life while he was awaiting trial in August 2019 in a Manhattan federal jail.
Later on Wednesday, Maxwell lawyer Bobbi Sternheim wrote to the judge, saying the juror’s lawyer should explain why his client wants to assert the Fifth Amendment and prosecutors should tell why they are willing to provide immunity to the juror.
She noted that the juror has said publicly that he “answered all questions honestly”.
As Maxwell awaits a June sentencing, her lawyers are seeking to have the verdict overturned on the grounds that the juror identified in court documents as Juror No 50 would never have been on the jury if he had accurately answered questions on a 50-point questionnaire filled out by prospective jurors in November.
The juror checked the “No” box to Question 48, which asked: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)”
Judge Nathan said she plans to ask the juror about his answers to Question 48 and Question 25, which asked: “Have you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?” Juror No. 50 also checked the “No” box in response to that question.
The controversy arose in January when the juror told news outlets that, during a week-long deliberation, he disclosed to fellow jurors that he was a child sex abuse victim and convinced other jurors that a victim’s imperfect memory of sex abuse does not mean it did not happen.
The juror has said he flew through the questionnaire and did not remember being asked whether he was a sex abuse survivor.
Defence lawyers asked the judge to toss out the verdict based on the juror’s revelations and order a new trial.
They said if she did not do so, she should question other jurors as well, especially after a second juror reportedly revealed post-trial a history of sex abuse.
And they asked to explore Juror No 50’s online and email communications.
But Judge Nathan said last week she would limit the inquiry to her posing questions to Juror No 50 about his answers to the two questions she deemed relevant.
The rest of the requests, she said, were “vexatious, intrusive, unjustified, and a fishing expedition”.
