The Ghislaine Maxwell Jury Gives No Christmas Gifts
We Don't Know What Comes Next, But It Won't Happen Before Monday
The Ghislaine Maxwell jury did not return a verdict yesterday. They did not send any notes to the judge, until late in the day, when they asked for a binder filled with the transcripts of three witnesses:
“Jane” (pseudonym) - whose testimony they previously received, as loose papers,
“Kate” (pseudonym) - who testified to sexual contact with Maxwell & Epstein, but Judge Nathan instructed the jury that the sexual contact was “not illegal” (because of the age of consent where the sexual activity allegedly occurred), and
Juan Alessi - Epstein’s butler at the Palm Beach estate.
Judge Nathan then asked the jurors whether they wished to deliberate today (December 23), when the court would otherwise be closed. The jurors quickly sent out a note stating that they would not want to deliberate today. So, nothing is going to happen before Monday, December 27.
So many people have asked me: “What does it all mean? When will they deliver a verdict? Is this length of deliberation good for the prosecution or defense?”
My answer: I do not know. I do not believe anyone knows (other than the jurors and (maybe) the bailiff who sits outside the door of the jury room). I believe that anyone who says that they know what a jury is going to do is either (a) lying to you, (b) lying to themselves or (c) much smarter than anyone I have ever met.
Here is my favorite story on the inscrutable nature of jury deliberations. It was told to me by the late Honorable Herbert N. Maletz, for whom I served as a law clerk from 1995-96. At that time, Judge Maletz was sitting as a senior status judge in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, trying mostly criminal cases. Judge Maletz was appointed by Lyndon Johnson to the Court of International Trade in 1967. In the 1970s and 80s, he spent his summers taking “busman’s holidays” to Maine with his family, where he would try overflow criminal cases in the United States District Court for the District of Maine.
[Note: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the story. I can only vouch that this is exactly how Judge Maletz told it to me].
During one of those summers in Maine (before the Sentencing Guidelines were adopted and there was much less pressure towards plea bargains), Judge Maletz presided over a criminal trial that seemed to be a slam dunk case for the prosecution. The defendant declined to plead guilty, against his attorney’s advice. The jury was selected on a Monday morning. The opening arguments were presented on Monday afternoon. The prosecution presented their witnesses on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. The defense did not present a case. Closing arguments were presented early Tuesday afternoon. Judge Maletz gave his instructions to the jury in the mid-afternoon — covering everything from selecting a foreperson, to the standard of proof, to the elements of the crimes. The jury started deliberating on Tuesday afternoon at around 4 pm. Everyone (including the defense counsel) expected a quick guilty verdict, possibly even that afternoon.
And then . . . nothing.
There were no jury notes on Tuesday.
There were no jury notes on Wednesday, after a full day of deliberations. At this point, people involved in the case were surprised and curious.
There were no jury notes on Thursday, after another full day of deliberations. The baliff reported to Judge Maletz that the jurors were all present and that they were regularly ordering lunch. At this point, everyone involved in the case was at a loss. The defense counsel asked the prosecutors whether they wanted to offer a more favorable plea deal, since “obviously” there was a problem with the case. The prosecutors conferred with their superiors, who said that no better deal should be offered “at this point.”
On Friday, there were no jury notes in the hours just before lunch. After lunch was ordered for the jury, but before it arrived, the US Attorney for the District of Maine went to the courtroom to sit with his prosecutors and defense counsel. They were about to re-open plea negotiations when a jury note emerged.
Judge Maletz read the note in open court:
”Judge Maletz,
We are hopelessly deadlocked on selecting a foreman for the jury. Since you told us that we should first pick a foreman, we have not done anything else.”
Judge Maletz brought the jurors into the courtroom. He had his courtroom deputy put 12 numbers in a hat and told the jurors that the juror sitting in the seat corresponding to the number he selected would be the foreperson. He picked a number and the jury retired to deliberate.
Within fifteen minutes (and before lunch was delivered), the jury returned with their verdict: guilty on all counts. According to Judge Maletz, that is the only jury that he ever saw in his decades on the bench that returned a verdict during the interim between ordering lunch and eating.
What is going to happen with the Ghislaine Maxwell jury? We'll see.
Mitch-
That is a great story. As you know, anyone who tries a lot of cases will have some crazy stories about "how the sausage is made" during jury deliberations. If you think you have seen it all, just try another case and you will see something you never saw, heard about, or could even guess≥ That is what makes this still a great profession.