- A jury last week convicted Jeffrey Epstein associated Ghislaine Maxwell of sex trafficking.
- Two jurors this week admitted to sharing their own experiences of sexual abuse during deliberations.
- Experts called the comments "an absolute disaster" and said it's very likely the case gets retried.
Eight days after Ghislaine Maxwell was found guilty of sex trafficking, two jurors in the case told media outlets that they may have swayed the jury by sharing their own experiences of sexual abuse during deliberations — revelations that could jeopardize the entire trial.
Maxwell, a British socialite and longtime associate of the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, was convicted on five of the six counts against her on December 29 after five days of deliberation.
A juror, Scotty David, identified only by his first and middle names, told The Independent and Reuters that he used his personal experience of abuse to assuage doubts other jurors had about some of the accusers' testimonies. A second juror told The New York Times they also shared a personal experience of sexual abuse that "appeared to help shape the jury's discussions."
Prosecutors filed a letter Wednesday requesting an inquiry into the remarks, Insider's Michelle Mark reported. Shortly after, Maxwell's attorneys filed two letters requesting a new trial.
Attorneys told Insider that the jurors' remarks to the media were devastating for the prosecution and could likely mean the case would need to be retried.
"This is the absolute last thing you want when you get a guilty verdict," Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor, told Insider. "You don't want the jurors talking to the media. You don't want them saying something that will result in a mistrial."
"It's an absolute disaster," he said. "This entire conviction may get tossed, and we may have to retry the case."
Rahmani explained that the jurors' comments pose two potential issues: perjury, or lying under oath, and prejudice, or a preconceived opinion that may have improperly swayed the jury.
'If the defense knew about it, they would've dismissed him'
Court documents showed jurors were asked during the selection process if they or anyone in their families were victims of sexual abuse. David told Reuters he "flew through" the questionnaire and did not remember if he was asked about personal experiences of sexual abuse, but said he would have answered honestly.
If he had answered affirmatively, however, it's doubtful the defense would've permitted him as a juror.
"If the defense knew about it, they would've dismissed him," Matthew Barhoma, a criminal-appeals lawyer in Los Angeles, told Insider. He agreed it appeared "very likely" the case would be retried.
During jury selection, attorneys go to great lengths to avoid selecting someone who will be biased, especially in cases as notorious as Maxwell's. Barhoma said he did not want to accuse the juror of lying but said there are two reasons a person may lie during jury selection.
"Jurors will lie to get on a jury for two reasons: if the case is notorious, and if they have been victims of the same allegations and they want to convict," he said.
Rahmani said it also appeared to him that David may have lied during jury selection, citing the fact that the defense attorneys wouldn't have approved of him, as well as how the prosecutors reacted to his comments to the media.
Prosecutors requested an inquiry because they have an ethical duty to flag to the court concerns of possible prejudice, Rahmani said. However, they also took the unusual step of requesting David be appointed an attorney.
"Jurors say and do all sorts of things that are inappropriate or improper, but they don't get appointed an attorney," he said.
The fact that prosecutors think David needs an attorney suggests they believe he may have acted criminally by committing perjury.
The jurors said their experiences persuaded others to convict
Another critical factor that could help Maxwell is that both jurors said they believed their comments helped convince the jury to deliver a guilty verdict.
"If he lied, and if what he told the media was accurate, that he used his own experience to convince the jury to convict, you have perjury and prejudice," Rahmani said.
David told Reuters and The Independent that several jurors had doubts about some of the Maxwell accusers' stories. He said he discussed his own experiences to show that memories of sexual abuse can be clear in some aspects and hazy in others.
"I know what happened when I was sexually abused. I remember the color of the carpet, the walls. Some of it can be replayed like a video," David told The Independent. "But I can't remember all the details. There are some things that run together."
After sharing that, he added, some jurors "were able to come around on the memory aspect of the sexual abuse."
Jurors often draw on their personal experiences during deliberations, according to Rahmani, and are free to discuss their past when doing so. It would only be an issue if David failed to disclose the sexual abuse on the selection questionnaire.
If it wasn't, as Rahmani believes is likely the case, and David did sway the other jurors to convict, that would mean his comments caused actual harm to Maxwell, which is needed to prove prejudice.
Prosecutors may argue the comments did not impact the verdict and that the jury would have voted to convict regardless, but that contradicts David's claims.
Barhoma agreed that David's comments about persuading others are especially damning.
"If I was the defense team, I would be taking these quotes right out of Reuters," he said.
"It's saved by the media for Maxwell," he added. "Had he not went off blabbing his mouth to reporters, we may never have uncovered it."
Have a news tip? Contact this reporter at [email protected].