Ghislaine Maxwell trial Juror 50 gave press interviews after the trial ended where he stated he was sexually abused as a child despite answering ‘No’ to those questions on the voir dire questionnaire. He is being hauled into court to answer questions under oath about whether he was or wasn’t. It sounds like there is a high probability she will be granted a new trial over this. I saw he lawyered up & was planning on pleading the 5th, which means he’s potentially subject to criminal charges & that the prosecution has granted him immunity so that he must testify.
Do potential jurors have to take an oath for voir dire? What if someone refuses? Is that a get-out-of-jury-duty-free card if you refuse to do such? Is this another way that citizens rights are trampled if you lose the JD lottery; that one must answer about their experiences & beliefs despite it being something they might not want to discuss?
If he states that he was abused is he then potentially subject to a civil suit by either the prosecutor or Maxwell for the additional costs because of the now-new trial? Since he’s being compelled to give testimony would that be prevented from being used against him if there was a civil case?
When I was on a jury in a criminal case in California (this was over 10 years ago), I do seem to recall being sworn in for voir dire and language on the preliminary form we filled out in the jury room stating that one was answering those questions under penalty of perjury if the prospective juror was busted in a lie.
It was an option to speak privately to an appropriate official if one did not wish to publicly discuss an answer given, but since the accused’s rights apparently always take precedence over those of the prospective jurors involuntarily hauled in and required to answer these things under legal duress (refusal carrying criminal sanctions), declining to answer is not an option.
I’d be surprised if prospective jurors were not required to take an oath before answering questions in voir dire, irrespective of venue.
In my time working with courts, we never had anyone refuse to take the oath as a prospective juror so no help there. It’s an interesting question. My guess is that a PJ who refused to take the oath would be interviewed in camera to determine the basis of the refusal, would be accommodated if it were possible to do that and quietly excused if not.
Lying under oath is a punishable offense for perjury. After all the time and money spent to try Ghislaine Maxwell, if a mistrial is granted based on this juror’s misconduct (and you’re right, it likely will be), I expect they prosecution will go after this juror hammer and tong.
Never seen that happen. I think the judge could perhaps hold you in contempt if you didn’t have a good reason.
Jurors are usually told that if there is something personal they didn’t want to discuss in public they can be questioned out of the presence of the other jurors and the public. Sexual abuse history is a common one.
You can plead the fifth, but that fact is often admissible in a civil case. (unlike a criminal case where the prosecution can’t introduce or comment on the invocation of the right to not incriminate yourself)
First, this protects the rights of the defendant and also the prosecution Both need potential jurors to answer honestly.
Second, our nation doesn’t ask too much of our fellow citizens. Vote if you want, pay taxes, and serve on juries once every few years. In my experience Judges bend over backwards to help jurors feel comfortable and to accommodate any reasonable concerns.
I get that jury duty is a pain in the ass. But, we really, really need jurors to participate in the system. Trial by jury is a critical part of the criminal and civil justice system. Most jurors tell me they value their experiences as a juror. Yes, it is inefficient and sometimes frustrating. But it’s important. We give jurors immense power. What other vehicle do average citizens have to tell a corporation they should pay for the harm they caused, for example. Or decide if the state has enough evidence to incarcerate a fellow citizen for a crime?
I’ve seen it happen. I was in a jury pool and someone who got called up for voir dire started in with some sort of weaselly bullshit that he probably thought would get him easily dismissed from jury duty. Judge was not having any of it, and after asking the potential juror a few times for a clear explanation of why he thought he couldn’t be an impartial juror and getting nonsense back, contempt of court was alluded to and the bullshitter fell in line right quick.
But none of that requires the juror to forced to do these things. They could try to pay a decent wage, with laws saying they must get paid leave or the government must cover the wages if they can’t (e.g. they’re self employed). They’d probably get enough jurors with that alone.
There should be more talk about balancing the rights of jurors vs. their obligations, and making sure that the obligations are the minimum necessary. In any other situation that’s what we would do. But, with juries, we know that we can force them, so we don’t care about that sort of thing.
It’s weird having this legal system based on certain freedoms, but then the actual administration of that legal system requires removing those freedoms. And not as a one-off thing, either.
Everything about it being necessary was also said about the draft. But we see now it isn’t really necessary, as they took the carrot approach instead of the stick.
The system should be set up to incentivize people to want to do the job.
No doubt but regarding the trial, in my experience as a juror and venireman is that they have a number of “spare” jurors who hear the evidence. Mainly meant in case someone falls ill or something, they are released as the twelve main jurors start their deliberations. Even in the dinky cases I’ve been with – no where near Maxwell levels – in this county there are three spares.
I agree completely. Many employers pay wages while an employee is on jury duty. It would be good if all did, although some small companies might really be in a bind if the trial lasted a long time. But, as you say, there are ways to address that too.
I will point out that improvements have been made in the last 20 years or so. Jurors used to be called on a Monday, and have to sit all week in the courthouse. If they had a quick trial, they might get on a second. Now, around here, it’s “one and done.” You sit on one case or come in for jury selection and you’re done for two years. They stagger the days jurors come in, and you call the night before to see if they need you. The last two times I was called for jury duty I didn’t even have to go to the courthouse. I called the number and was released. That would never have happened a few years ago.
As I said before, Judges (most of them) bend over backwards to make sure jurors aren’t sitting around doing nothing. Legal arguments are held during breaks, and before and after the trial dates. In Anchorage, as I recall, the jury day is from 8:30 to 1:30, (with minimal breaks) so they have essentially half a day to get other stuff done. The court does other things in the afternoon.
And, of course, zoom trials are really good for jurors, although I don’t know if that will stay after the pandemic. Probably not. But jurors get to stay home, avoid security, traffic, parking, and being walled in for hours at a time. Any delay is spent in your living room instead of a small soulless jury room. Jurors love it.
In short, everyone agrees there is a problem and people truly are working on reducing the burdens on jurors. The big one need is more money for the jurors. Courts are really underfunded.
The very first question on my county’s pre-questionnaire (the questions they ask you with your notice that you’ve lost the lottery & were selected & want you to fill out before you even know if you’re having to go in is):
Marital status
Single
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Now I can see divorced status maybe being an appropriate voir dire question in some family court trials but why would they need to know that for a criminal case or a civil court accident / negligence case?
I’d imagine there’s a big overlap between people that are divorced and people that have been cheated on. If you have a case involving someone doing something (killing/beating/harassing) to a cheating spouse or the person they’re cheating with, you might not want people on the jury that have been through that and may sympathize with the defendant.