The Judge Gets Impatient - No Verdict in Ghislaine Maxwell Trial After Three Full Days of Deliberation
“It’s too difficult to parse factually and legally.”
There was no verdict at the end of the fourth full day of deliberations in the US vs. Maxwell trial today.
Just before 10:30 AM, Ghislaine Maxwell came in wearing a camel turtleneck sweater. She hugged her lawyers, Jeffrey Pagliuca and Bobbie Sternheim, warmly.
All of Maxwell’s lawyers visible on the screen in the overflow room were wearing black K95 masks. The prosecutors who were visible were wearing white masks.
The attorneys were in the room because the jury had sent a note to the judge asking for different colored Post-It notes, a whiteboard, and different colored highlighters.
The jury also asked for a definition of enticement, and for Matt’s testimony. Matt, who testified under a pseudonym, was Jane’s ex-boyfriend. They met on the set of soap opera they worked on together.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe said that enticement has its normal meaning. Christian Everdell, for the defense, offered that there are examples in case law that go into a bit more detail, and suggested clarifying that enticement is to “attract, induce, or lure using hope or desire.”
The note Judge Nathan ended up sending used that language.
Sternheim then brought up that while Maxwell was being provided with a K95 mask in the courtroom, she had to take it off to switch to another, normal mask when she was brought out of the room. Sternheim asked the judge to instruct the marshals to let Maxwell wear the mask throughout the entirety of the proceedings. The judge agreed to look into it.
Later in the day, at about 2:50 PM, the jury sent another note asking for David Rodgers’ testimony. Rodgers worked for Jeffrey Epstein for 28 years, one of his two chief pilots who flew him around the world in Epstein’s private jets.
Nathan then proposed suggesting the jury work an additional hour tomorrow. The Defense objected to this.
“I think the jury should make their own schedule,” Sternheim said. “They seem to be working very studiously and seem to have a mind of their own.”
Around 4:30 PM the jury asked a question which took a while for the lawyers and the judge to settle. They wanted to know if a return flight from New Mexico for Jane allegedly organized by Maxwell would be enough to convict under count 4.
Count 4, according to the summary of the indictment, “charges [Maxwell] with conspiring to engage in sex trafficking of individuals under the age of seventeen in interstate commerce, with the intent that the individual engage in sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense. [It] relates solely to Jane and the time period 1994 to 1997.”
Richard Everdell for the defense argued that the flight in question was not organized with the intention of having the individual engage in sexual activity, but was in fact bringing Jane away from where the alleged sexual activity happened. Therefore, it is not sufficient to convict, Everdell argued.
“Your honor, we think the answer to this question is no,” he said. That flight away from New Mexico would not be evidence of a significant or motivating purpose, two elements essential to the crime, to engage in sexual activity, “because she’s going home.”
Everdell emphasized this point further: “this is her leaving New Mexico.”
Thus, “the return flight is not for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.”
“At least the answer can’t be no,” Moe said, asking for the jury to be referred to the instruction on the charges.
Nathan and Moe both said they found the question confusing.
“Your honor, I don’t find this question confusing,” Everdell said.
“Well I do,” said Nathan.
After a long back and forth on comma placement in the question and what it meant for the meaning of the question, Judge Nathan agreed with the government and said she would refer the jury to the instructions.
“I don’t know what this question means, it’s too difficult to parse factually and legally.”