OA561: Why Ghislaine Maxwell Could Get a New Trial
Added 2022-01-17 05:16:44 +0000 UTCA juror lied about being a victim of sexual assault. Is that enough for Ghislaine Maxwell to get a new trial? Find out as Andrew brings us the legal deep dive. Also, GOOD NEWS! The Ohio Supreme Court struck down some gerrymandered maps. It's fantastic news and we're here to tell you all about it!
Links: Rule 33. New Trial, McDonough Power Equipment v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984), Ramos v. Louisiana – 140 S.Ct 1390 (2020), Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U. S. 243, 251 (1940), League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Commission, Article XI - Ohio Constitution
Appearances
None. Invite us on!
-Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
-Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos!
-Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
-Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed! @oawiki
-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!
Comments
also who doesn't have family member who's been injured by a common machine or appliance at some point in their life? Like my dad does wood work and he's badly cut himself with his buss saw a couple times. Would that get me thrown off the jury?
General Contact Unit Problem Child
2022-01-17 22:52:54 +0000 UTCI honestly don't think that a single person in this country can honestly answer "no" to "have you or a family member ever been the victim or attempted victim of sexual assault or unwanted advances" (paraphrased). That's such a big category of things that literally every woman I've ever spoken to has been in that position, as well as many of the men. That someone wouldn't have (at minimum) a family member that was the victim of an unwanted sexual advance strains credulity
Twas Brillig And The Slithy Toves Did Gyre And Gimble In The Wabe All Mimsy Were The Borogoves And The Mome Raths Outgabe
2022-01-17 17:29:42 +0000 UTCWhat happens if a juror provides incorrect information because they genuinely interpret their experience as not wrong, even though they were definitely victimized according to the law? E.g. some people who experienced statutory rape think it was okay and not harmful. If you ask them if they were raped, they would honestly but incorrectly say no. Also, are there provisions for people not wanting to discuss this stuff publicly?
Stormy Decisis
2022-01-17 17:04:06 +0000 UTC
