Why Ghislaine Maxwell Was Convicted (And How A Juror Might Undo It)

⚖ What should I cover next? 🎗 Get your GiveWell donation matched up to $250! legaleagle.link/givewell (code LEGALEAGLE)

I feel like calling her a "first time offender" is kinda a stretch for 2+ decades of trafficking minors...

I knew a man who was sentenced to 19 years for selling marijuana, a substance that is now legal when he was sentenced. To hear that a woman who preyed on young girls and destroyed hundreds of lives may get 25 years is very frustrating in that light.

I really appreciate that you use the word “underage girls” and “girls.” To often we hear the words “underage women.” The distinction is important!

The private jet was called “The Lolita Express”. They flaunted their crimes knowing that there are two justice systems in this world.

It’s frustrating to hear “first time offender” when this wasn’t a one-time thing. I get it, it’s based on how many times you’ve been before a judge already and if you were punished before but god, she isn’t a “first time offender”. She partook in multiple criminal activities, this is just the first time she’s being judged for them.

Her being called a first time offender is like Jeffrey Dahmer being called a first time offender in his trial. Just because they haven't been caught before doesn't mean that they aren't a monster that knows exactly what they're doing.

I'm glad he clarified that "experienced trauma" does not equal "impartial." Honestly, I think NOT experiencing trauma can cause its own kind of bias. Like, some people don't understand that it can be hard to clearly recall details around a traumatic event. They have a bias towards trusting their own memories because they have never had their memories questioned under pressure, never been gaslit and forced to collect evidence about their own experiences, never had their brain tune out something awful because you could not be a functioning human being if you were always thinking about what happened, never had a shocking realization that "oh wow, that was NOT NORMAL" because your baseline for normal got warped.... In short, if you have no one on your jury who experienced any kind of PTSD, that's not an unbiased jury. That's like saying a white jury is more impartial because they aren't biased by experiencing racism. The only way to have an unbiased jury is to have a spectrum of experiences.

02:21 "laundering pension funds". He took the money that his employees had spent their whole working life paying into a pension fund. A fund which is strictly legally protected, and spent it trying to keep his bankrupt companies afloat. The money is gone, the employees are getting by on what they can, and a lot ore on state support for the poor. That's not laundering it's stealing.

Great timing, Judge Caplain just gave the go ahead for Virginia Giuffre to pursue a civil case against Prince Andrew.

1:50 - Chapter 1 - Who is Ghislaine Maxwell ? 5:20 - Chapter 2 - What was Maxwell's role ? 7:35 - Chapter 3 - Maxwell's charges 7:40 - Chapter 3.1 - Sex trafficking a minor 8:45 - Chapter 3.2 - Enticing a minor to travel and transporting a minor 9:55 - Chapter 3.3 - 3 conspiracies charges 11:05 - Chapter 4 - Maxwell defense 11:55 - Chapter 5 - Federal sentencing guidelines 13:20 - Chapter 6 - Perjury charges 14:40 - Chapter 7 - Jurors speaks out 16:35 - Chapter 8 - Voir Dire 17:20 - Chapter 9 - What's the standard for a fair trial because a juror lied ? 20:50 - End roll ads

As an Australian, the fact that jurors are allowed to talk to anyone not in the jury about what happened in the case is strange to me.

Does anyone remember that part at the end of Twilight New Moon, where Edward and Bella are leaving from the home of the vampire council? As they're leaving, a tour guide is showing a group of human tourists into the home, and the doors are shut to screaming. She's the tour guide, not a bystander.

Oh, she's with that Maxwell family? That's hilarious. That particular Maxwell family is also tied up in the Battle for the rights over Tetris, in gaming history. Robert's son basically tried to screw his way into getting the rights to publish the game. Turns out though, no one ever had the right to give it to him in the first place, and after the Maxwell company refused to answer a telex message regarding right of first refusal, they lost all of the rights to everything related to Tetris as a whole to Nintendo. Seriously, that whole family is pretty scummy.

I’m pretty sure there’s been people who have gone to prison longer than her just for growing weed

The American jury selection process is so different from in the U.K. I have done jury duty twice in the U.K. and the only questions I remember being asked were to confirm that I didn’t know anyone involved in the case such as the defendant or any of the lawyers.

Legally, does the term "First time offender" translate to "First time convicted for the particular crime"? If so, that would mean no matter how many instances of that crime the individual had committed, because it was the first accusation that led to prosecution resulting in conviction within the legal system, it would qualify as a "first time offence", and regardless of whether or not the particular offence was the first, it was the first brought before the court successfully. Am I right? If so, then it means the public perception of the term "first time offender" is drastically out to lunch. Edit: Changed 'prosecuted' to 'convicted' in the initial post. Also, regarding the whole innocent until proven guilty thing in the subsequent comments, I don't think that's actually important to the point I was trying to make. Rather than addressing that aspect of law, or even rendering an opinion on it, I was merely attempting to clarify a specific definition of a phrase as used within the confines of a legal setting. This is, in some ways, akin to a ruling in a misplay of a card game like Magic: the Gathering, or Legend of the Five Rings. You need to ensure that the cards interact in the way you believe they do, lest you find yourself assuming a course of action is correct when it is in fact based on a false assumption of how the rules play out. Actually, I highly recommend learning games like those to anyone interested in better understanding legal procedure. There seems to be a large degree of overlap in terms of mental headspace.

Has there ever been a case where this juror issue has actually worked in the favor of a regular, normal, everyday American? It seems to work VERY frequently for the wealthy and connected.

We need ruthless prosecutors on every part of this. No plea deals. Public trials.

It's absurd that lawyers get to pick juries. And being clueless about the realities of SA victims doesn't make a jurors impartial, it makes them unqualified in a world where SA victims are regularly scrutinized as though they were the perpetrators 🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️