Prosecutors in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell have said that a juror who failed to disclose his own history of being sexually abused did not deliberately lie and should not be grounds for a retrial - while her defence branded him “self-serving and simply not believable”.
In a brief filed before the US District Court of New York on Tuesday, federal prosecutor Damian Williams and his staff said that "Juror 50", now known publicly as Scotty David, made an "honest mistake" and would not have been excluded from the trial if he had answered correctly.
Maxwell was convicted last year of recruiting and grooming young girls to be abused by her "partner in crime" Jeffrey Epstein in a five-week sex trafficking trial that was followed by media across the world.
However, Maxwell's defence lawyers are pressing for a retrial due to comments made by Mr David to The Independent and other outlets after the verdict about his own history of being abused.
In a hearing in New York last week, Mr David admitted that he answered parts of the jury selection questionnaire incorrectly, but said he had done so inadvertently because he was "super distracted" and had "skimmed way too fast".
Outlining their arguments for why Mr David’s testimony does not warrant a retrial, prosecutors said: "After the thoughtful and thorough hearing held by this Court, it is crystal clear that the defendant received a fair trial.
"Juror 50’s sworn testimony at the hearing made evident that he did not deliberately lie in completing the questionnaire, but that he instead made an honest mistake.
"In any event, had Juror 50 accurately reported in his questionnaire that he had been a victim of sexual abuse, he would not have been struck for cause...
"Multiple other potential jurors in this case reported having experienced sexual abuse and were nonetheless qualified as jurors... nothing about his service as a juror calls into question the integrity of the verdict in this case."
In the aftermath of the trial, Mr David came forward in the media about his own history of being abused, telling The Independent that explaining his experiences to other jurors may have helped persuade them Maxwell's accusers were not lying.
“This verdict is for all the victims,” he said then. “For those who testified, for those who came forward and for those who haven’t come forward. I’m glad that Maxwell has been held accountable.”
Nevertheless, Mr David had wrongly answered "no" to questions asking whether he had ever been the victim of a crime or of sexual harassment or abuse, as well as a question about whether any members of his family had ever been accused of such acts.
In their brief, the prosecutors argue that in order to trigger a retrial, the court must find both that a juror lied deliberately on their questionnaire and that they would have been excluded from the jury had they not done so.
They cite Mr David's testimony last week that he had been distracted by the noise of the crowded jury selection room and a recent bad breakup, leading him to "fly through" the last few questions in a bid to escape.
They quote him as saying that he "absolutely [did] not... in any way intentionally provide an inaccurate answer" and that his past experiences "did not affect [his] ability to be fair and impartial at all."
In an opposing brief filed the same day, Maxwell's defence team disputed that in strong terms, accusing Mr David of giving "inconsistent, implausible, and contradictory" answers that "lacked credibility".
"If there is one thing we learned from Juror 50 at the hearing, it is this: he should never have been a member of this jury," they said.
"The abuse Juror 50 described at the hearing... was remarkably similar to the abuse described by the government’s four key victim witnesses and would, by itself, have formed the basis for a challenge for cause."
They suggested that Mr David's explanations for why he answered the questions wrongly, including that he no longer thought of himself as a victim and no longer regarded his abuser as part of his family, were proof that his trauma and "healing process" made him "too biased to serve as a juror in this case".
A date for the hearing where the judge will hear oral arguments on the filings has yet to be scheduled, according to the court docket.
