Letter to the editor: Plea deal could be coming in Maxwell case

Following the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s ex-girlfriend and alleged procurer on sex trafficking and other charges, two of the jurors in her recent trial have acknowledged their personal experiences with sexual abuse. Why does this matter, particularly since Judge Alison Nathan, who presided over the case, told jurors to listen to the opinions of fellow jurors and to draw upon their experiences in deciding whether to convict Maxwell?

The first juror to speak out after the guilty verdict, using only his first and middle name, Scotty David, told reporters and acknowledged to the court that his experience as a survivor of sexual abuse led him to believe the accusers who testified at the trial, despite some gaps in their recollections. A second, anonymous juror acknowledged being sexually abused as a child and discussed this with the rest of the jury. For these reasons and because they did not disclose their personal experiences with sexual abuse while being considered to serve on the jury, among other less material ones, Maxwell’s lawyers have indicated that they will seek to have the guilty verdict thrown out and a new trial ordered.

Criminal defense lawyers often try, and usually fail, to have a mistrial based upon juror misconduct. This time, Maxwell’s lawyers are more likely to succeed. .

Before a trial begins, potential jurors are required to complete a questionnaire. The answers are then given to the attorneys on both sides. The attorneys can question the jurors on their answers to the questionnaires. Maxwell’s lawyers sought to inquire whether prospective jurors had any history of personal or family sexual abuse. The prosecutors opposed presenting such questions and Judge Nathan ruled in their favor.

When the jury was deliberating, one or both jurors appear to have told the other jurors that they had been sexually abused. An important element of the trial was the memory of Maxwell's accusers and how they related to sexual abuse victims. To say the least, this was a contentious issue among attorneys during the trial as each side summoned a memory expert to testify.

Without a doubt, if Maxwell's lawyers had known the truth about these jurors, they would have opposed their being selected to serve on the jury … and rightfully so.

The judge could decide that the abused jurors’ history and its impact on the entire jury was minimal and non-prejudicial. If the judge does not order a mistrial, Maxwell will have a great basis for appeal.

The judge could order a mistrial and schedule the case for a new trial, which seems most appropriate under the circumstances.

Both sides as well as the judge do not want another trial, although Maxwell's attorneys are far more amenable to a new trial than the prosecutors. The judge is likely to try to get a plea deal. Maxwell will plead guilty to something. Her attorneys will ask that the sentence be for time already served. The prosecutor will probably ask for 10 years, but the judge can get them down to somewhere around five. Time already served will be applied to the sentence. While the victims might be outraged, they will still have a guilty plea and a considerable amount of time in jail. Maybe this won't happen but at least you won't be surprised if it does.

*

Richard Greenfield of West Palm Beach is a former island resident who has represented some of Bernie Madoff's victims.

This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Daily News: Letter: Jurors' revelations of past sexual abuse could trigger Maxwell plea deal