Wanted: jurors without bias who haven’t followed Ghislaine Maxwell trial
Screening of 600 people begins for a ‘fair and impartial’ jury in Epstein sex trafficking case
A FEDERAL court in New York has begun screening 600 prospective jurors for Ghislaine Maxwell’s upcoming sex trafficking trial, in order to weed out those with a dislike for the “wealthy” and other biases.
Ms Maxwell’s attorneys have argued it will be difficult for the British socialite to receive a fair trial given the “intense” media coverage surrounding the high-profile case, particularly in light of the death of her associate Jeffrey Epstein.
Hundreds of potential jurors have been filling out a 24-page jury questionnaire since Thursday to decide whether they are fit to judge whether Ms Maxwell, 59, is guilty of procuring underage girls for Epstein to abuse.
They have had to answer 51 questions about any personal experiences with sexual abuse and whether they are prejudiced against people with “luxurious lifestyles”. One question says: “Do you have any strong views regarding people who are wealthy?”
The 600-strong pool, which will be drawn from the southern district of New York – which includes the boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx – will also be asked whether anything would prevent them from being “fair and impartial” at the trial, which starts on November 29.
Legal experts say cases such as Ms Maxwell’s demand a much larger than normal number of potential jurors given many will have knowledge – and probably opinions – of Epstein’s sex trafficking ring. For comparison, 400 people completed juror questionnaires in the case against disgraced Wall Street banker Bernie Madoff.
In a video address played to candidates before they filled out the questionnaire, US district judge Alison Nathan this week said there would be significant press coverage of the trial.
“Some of you may have already heard about this case in the media, and that is OK,” Ms Nathan said, before instructing them not to read any more from this point on.
Ms Maxwell, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, had made several robust appeals to keep the jury selection process hidden from the public. Her legal team had requested Judge Nathan block the public and news media from seeing the juror questionnaire and from sitting in on the jury selection process.
Adam Klasfeld, managing editor at Law and Crime News, said he was “extremely surprised” at the level of secrecy Ms Maxwell’s team was demanding. “It is extraordinarily unusual to request a private ‘voir dire’,” he said. “The judge even asked Maxwell’s lawyers to provide a precedent for this, and they couldn’t.”
The judge ordered the questionnaire to be released, and Mr Klasfeld, who has spent years covering criminal cases in New York, remarked it was “routine as can be”.
“It perfectly illustrates the [Barbra] Streisand effect,” Mr Klasfield told The Telegraph, referring to the singer’s attempt in 2003 to suppress publication of a photograph of her residence in Malibu, which inadvertently drew greater attention to it. “There was little in it that is new, or newsworthy, save for the fact that her defence team wanted to seal it.”
For the defence, one challenge is that jurors may hold Ms Maxwell to a higher standard because she is a woman, offered Melissa Gomez, president of MMG Jury Consulting. “It’s not solely going to be whether she actively participated, but, as a woman, did she fail to protect these other [younger] women?” Ms Gomez said.
Those that make it past this screening stage will be questioned by Ms Nathan during what is known as a process of “voir dire”. In selecting 12 primary jurors, and six alternates, the defence will have 10 challenges and the prosecution will have six. For alternates, each side will get three challenges.
Judge Nathan, who will conduct oneon-one follow-up questioning next week, said: “If a juror is going to lie and be dishonest, we will smoke that out.”