October 13, 2025 • 22 mins
In comparing the Vanderbilt rape case to Ghislaine Maxwell’s federal sex-trafficking trial, many legal analysts pointed out striking similarities regarding juror nondisclosure and its potential effect on verdicts. In the Vanderbilt case, involving former football players Brandon Vandenburg and Cory Batey, one juror’s failure to reveal he had been sexually assaulted led to the conviction being overturned and a full retrial. Observers drew a direct line to Maxwell’s case when a juror revealed post-trial that he, too, had been a victim of sexual abuse—information not disclosed during jury selection. Defense attorneys seized on the precedent, arguing that such a revelation could create bias and should trigger a new trial. Commentators cited the Vanderbilt retrial as an example of how juror honesty is foundational to due process, especially in emotionally charged sex-crime cases.
Yet the two cases diverge sharply in scope and procedure. The Vanderbilt matter was tried under Tennessee state law, while Maxwell’s case was a federal prosecution involving international sex-trafficking allegations and an entirely different standard for overturning verdicts. U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan rejected Maxwell’s motion for a new trial, ruling that although the juror’s omission was “regrettable,” it did not undermine the fairness of deliberations or the integrity of the verdict. The comparison nevertheless underscores a shared legal tension: how courts navigate juror bias in cases steeped in trauma and public scrutiny. While the Vanderbilt case serves as a cautionary tale, Maxwell’s conviction held firm, showing how federal judges weigh such challenges through a stricter lens.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Yet the two cases diverge sharply in scope and procedure. The Vanderbilt matter was tried under Tennessee state law, while Maxwell’s case was a federal prosecution involving international sex-trafficking allegations and an entirely different standard for overturning verdicts. U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan rejected Maxwell’s motion for a new trial, ruling that although the juror’s omission was “regrettable,” it did not undermine the fairness of deliberations or the integrity of the verdict. The comparison nevertheless underscores a shared legal tension: how courts navigate juror bias in cases steeped in trauma and public scrutiny. While the Vanderbilt case serves as a cautionary tale, Maxwell’s conviction held firm, showing how federal judges weigh such challenges through a stricter lens.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
Hope that everybody's having a great Friday morning out there,
and hopefully you all have some fantastic plans locked in
for the weekend. As for me, I plan on waking
up tomorrow morning nice and early, heading to the mountains
for some climbing, then directly from there I'm going to
(00:22):
a sports card show to spend a bunch of money, obviously,
and after that, well it's directly home for a feast
of Italian food, playoff football, and finally UFC being back
after a three week hiatus, Come Sunday, Rinse and repeat. Well,
(00:45):
no card show Sunday for me, but everything else Rinse
and repeat. As well as working on a couple of
other projects that I've had in the cooker for a while,
one of them being a pretty in depth conversation I've
had with a couple of sources from Mexico who have
been detailing a bit of the behind the scenes action
(01:08):
as far as the cartel wars are going and the
whole entire drug war in general. So I've been talking
to these folks for quite some time, and finally I'm
putting it all together where I'm going to be able
to get a couple of episodes out for you folks,
so you could hear what these people had to say
(01:30):
as well. Now it's going to be in a interview format.
They're not going to come onto the show. It's not
really their thing to even be speaking to anybody. So
it's a kind of a protected source kind of deal.
But I did it kind of like a article form, right,
(01:52):
like we would read in one of these articles how
they do the question and answer session. That's sort of
what I did with these sources. And I'm going to
put it all together and we're going to talk about
it on the podcast in the coming weeks. Because what
they had to say about the connections between the cartels
groups in China, the fentanyl that's coming in illegal lithium mining,
(02:15):
it was mind blowing and jaw dropping, you know, the
sort of thing you would expect to hear if you
turn on the legacy media on your TV. But nope,
we don't hear anything like that. Instead, we just hear
more of the same there. Right. So, I've been digging
into this story for quite some time. I have a
few episodes that I've posted on my other podcast, that
(02:39):
relate to the war on drugs. I've posted a few
here already the series about Gary Webb, and I'm going
to post a couple of more to get things primed
up and ready to go for the eventual drop of
this project I'm working on, because I think that you're
all gonna find it very very interesting. The way that
(03:00):
they have been able to operate almost with impunity has
been very, very, very eye opening, and it just goes
to show you that these people and the reach that
they have, it's unbelievable. So that's something that's coming in
the next couple of weeks, and again, I think you
(03:22):
folks are going to find it very interesting. Some of
the stuff that we talked about, and some of the
revelations that these folks dropped on me were just insane,
Like the callousness of which violent acts are committed. It's
just part and parcel for the way that things are
(03:43):
down there. It's so bad that you have local communities
rallying together, creating their own defense units because the government
can't protect them. So you basically have a civilization down
in mecha Ago right now where the government's only nom
(04:03):
nominally in charge, and you know, on the world stage,
of course they're in charge, but I'm talking about inside
of their own country. And with all of that power
that these cartels are wielding down in Mexico, you better
believe that they've been branching out and they've been working
with people on the mainland of China, especially to bring
(04:25):
fentanyl into Mexico so that in turn, they can you know,
use it to cut other drugs, send it into America
with their other shipments. And we all know the misery
that you know has been brought with the fentanyl explosion
here in America. We thought crack was bad, and don't
(04:46):
get me wrong, obviously you don't want to be a crackhead.
But what's going on with this fentanyl is just bad news, folks,
and we're gonna we're gonna tackle that as well, how
it's getting into the country, the process, all of it.
So be on the lookout for that, and obviously I'll
let you know when I'm going to upload that stuff.
But it was, man, I'll tell you some very interesting
(05:11):
conversations with these folks, and it was two different people.
One person located in let's say, a border town with
America and another one located in basically the heart of
cartel country. And that's about as far as I'll go
(05:32):
with their locations. But it has been an eye opening
experience to hear what they have to say, and I'm
definitely going to share that with all of you when
I get it all packaged and ready to go. So today,
what we're going to talk about, however, is a little
bit more about you know, who guilty Galaine and the
(05:58):
situation that we find ourselves in as far as a
potential mistrial here. Now. Again, look, just because we talk
about a mistrial, it doesn't mean that she's going to
get off, right, I just want to be very clear
about that. I think that if there is a mistrial,
she will be convicted. Once again. My point, when I
(06:18):
get agitated about it and you know, go crazy almost,
it's because why should these survivors have to relive this
all over again all because some juror wanted to be
a douche? Now do you really think that any juror
(06:38):
in a new trial is going to let her off
with all of the evidence that's been presented. Come on,
just think back to the testimony. What exactly did the
defense bring to the table. Elizabeth LOFTUS give me a break.
Compared to all of the other testimony from Carolyn, from Annie,
from the other Jane, does you really think that Glane
(07:01):
Maxwell is gonna get off? All this does is prolong
the misery for the survivors, and I think that's why
it's so agitating for people. I definitely don't think that
she'll be getting off if a mistrial is called. I
think that it'll be the same result, but just a
prolonged situation for people who have already been victimized enough.
(07:25):
So that's where my biggest issue is. And of course,
if juror number fifty Scottie David did lie, then I
have a big issue with that as well. I think
that we need to make sure that a trial, especially
is as fair and impartial as possible. It's all fine
and well when it's somebody like Glanne Maxwell up there
(07:45):
and she's about to get railroaded or there was impropriety,
and you know, it's easy to want to look the
other way, right, It's easy to want to say, ah,
to hell with it, it's just a monster like Thelane Maxwell.
But that helps promote the broken system and I will
not be part of that. I want this system fixed.
I want the Bureau of Prisons fixed. I want the
(08:07):
Department of Justice fixed. And just shrugging your shoulders and saying,
add no big deal, she's a monster anyway, that's not
going to get it done for me. I don't want
there to be any doubt. I want this lady to
go to prison for the rest of her life with
no doubt about it. And if jur number fifty lied
on that questionnaire, that could impede the process a bit,
(08:29):
but I don't think that's the end of it. I
don't think she gets off because of this. I don't
think any jury in their right mind would ever let
this lady off. And that's just by hearing what we've
heard in the trial. Imagine if they really put her
on blast and went crazy and laid out all of
the alleged crimes that she has committed. Now, I know
(08:51):
the non prosecution agreement really stops them from doing that,
but it can't stop us from talking about it, right,
And it's a shame that it will never be exposed
the way it should be because of that non prosecution agreement.
But Gleagne Maxwell and her attempts to try and latch
(09:12):
onto this as a mistrial and her getting off. That's
not going to work. And I'm pretty confident when I
say that. Now we have a case that is relatively
similar to this, and that is the Vanderbilt rape case
and the retrial that ended up happening for two of
the participants because one of the jurors was untruthful and
(09:36):
the end result obviously was still a conviction, but they
did get another trial. So when we talk about this,
that's my goal, just to prepare you for the eventuality
that we might see another trial here. It doesn't mean
that I think she's gonna get off. I certainly do not.
I've been pretty clear about that, I think, and I
(09:56):
think that when we look at this other case, the
built case, it kind of gives you a glimpse into
the future if this does go to a mistrial. So
let's take a look at this article from Insider and
let's see what Kenneth Neiemeier, the author has to say headline,
(10:17):
Glenn Maxwell case gives flashbacks to lawyers who worked on
Vanderbilt rape retrial. And again, you always want to look
for precedent, right, things that have come before, cases that
are similar, because that's how you can draw a more
educated opinion on things, and if it's something that has
never happened before, there's no comparisons. Well, you're kind of,
(10:38):
you know, swimming without a life vest. But when you
have something to compare it to, it's a little easier
to look at all of the particulars and say to yourself,
all right, this is where it adds up. This is
where it doesn't add up. And when you look at
the Vanderbilt rape trial, there are certainly a lot of
echoes of the of the the Maxwell verdict. Here. When
(11:04):
Nashville prosecutor Roger Moore heard that two jurors who convicted
Glene Maxwell later revealed they are survivors of sexual abuse,
he thought to himself, been there, done that. In twenty fifteen,
More led the prosecution of two former Vanderbilt University football players,
Brandon Vandenberg and Corey Beatty, on charges of raping a
(11:27):
fellow student on campus. Two other former players also face
charges in connection with the rape. Now, imagine what kind
of animal you have to be. First of all, you're
getting a huge privilege to be a football player at Vanderbilt.
You know how many people would kill for that opportunity,
the chance to go to a great university like Vanderbilt,
(11:50):
get a scholarship to do so, go play football, get
an education, and these stupid idiot morons think it's a
good idea to raper girl. And we gotta be better, dudes, guys, fellas,
we gotta be better. And I know a lot of
dudes don't want to hear that, but it's a fact.
We got to treat teach our kids better, our nephews better,
(12:11):
and we need to be an example for them because
this shit isn't gonna It's not gonna fly. While a
state jerry convicted Vandenberg and Beatty, the judge ordered a
new trial after it came to light that the jerry's
foreman didn't disclose that he was a victim of sexual assault.
So you see the parallels here. And while Scotty David
(12:35):
wasn't the foreman, he was still a jur who, according
to reports, didn't disclose the issues that he had personally
as far as sexual abuse. So that certainly gives them
something to sink their teeth in, Meaning the defense having
a guilty verdict overturned due to a juror's actions is
(12:55):
frustrating beyond belief for prosecutors. More told Insider Vandenberg and
Beatty were each retried and convicted in twenty sixteen. Both
men were sentenced to fifteen years in prison. So you see,
on the retrial it didn't change things, right, The evidence
is still the same. And any jury that's sitting in
(13:15):
and hearing this kind of evidence like they heard in
the Vanderbilt case, or like they will hear in the
Maxwell case if it is a mistrial, they're gonna come
to the same conclusion. Nobody in their right mind is
going to sit down and say, ah, you know, I
think Delaine Maxwell is innocent. I think all of this
evidence is bs. They're just trying to go after her
(13:37):
because she's rich. What sort of dumbass a strategy is
that it's ridiculous. In fact, ultimately we got the same result.
More told Insider, we just had to do it twice.
Legal experts have told Insider that it's very likely Maxwell,
(13:59):
a former law longtime associate, co conspirator, general all around scumbag,
fellow child abuser of disgraced financier pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, we'll
get a new trial on sex trafficking charges. After two
jurors revealed that they were victims of sexual abuse. And again,
it all hinges on what they told the court in
(14:20):
that questionnaire. Right, If they told the court that they
were abused and the defense missed it, that's on them.
One juror, who identified himself as Scotty David, told The
Independent that his experience that his experience as a survivor
of abuse led him to believe some of the women
who testified against Maxwell, despite gaps in their recollections. The
(14:43):
jury went silent when he shared his story during deliberations,
David said, and again, I don't know if I believe that.
We haven't heard from anybody else on this jury. So
Scotty David is just, you know, he's the narrator, the
reliable narrator for this whole story, all right, I guess.
A second anonymous juror told The New York Times that
(15:04):
they also shared their experience being sexually abused as a
child during deliberations, which they said appeared to help shape
the jury's discussions in the Vanderbilt case. According to Moore
Jerry Foreman, Todd Easter's revelation came after a man who
was convicted of sexually assaulting Easter saw him give a
television interview about the trial. Wow, so talk about, you know,
(15:29):
getting caught by fate. You're out there doing an interview
and you get nailed by well, I shouldn't say nailed.
But the guy who you know did that to you,
sees what's going on? Sh talk about coincidence. He said
to himself, Wait a minute, how did that guy get
in a Jerry Moore said, so, he notifies defense attorneys
(15:51):
and they raised the issue. So this scumbag who abused
this dude not only abused him, according to the juror's
account here from the Vanderbilt trial, he also called the
defense attorneys afterwards and said, Hey, this guy shouldn't be
on the trial. What an absolute scumbag. Randy Reagan, a
defense attorney who represented Vandenburgh during the retrial, told Insider
(16:14):
that Easter had lobbied to be the jury foreman for
his first trial and was very forceful during deliberations. Easter
later told the court that when he was seventeen, he
had a consensual sexual relationship with a man in his twenties.
While Easter did not discuss his personal experience during jury deliberations,
Judge Monty Watkins wrote in his ruling declaring a mistrial
(16:36):
that actual bias had clearly been shown in the case.
And this is one thing that I do fear that
Judge Nathan will see that as well and order a
new trial here. Judge Nathan has admonished the government before,
and she has won after the SDNY before, So my
question is what is she going to do here? More
(17:00):
and Reagan both told Insider that the Vanderbilt rape case
was the only trial they've ever worked on where a
juror's conduct resulted in a retrial. It's not very common, right,
We talked about this a little bit. It is not
very often that a judge or a court is going
to go back on a ruling and change things. That's
what appeals are for. Morse At his office did not
(17:21):
pursue perjury charges against Easter because prosecutors could not prove
that he knowingly lied during the questioning. The pre trial
procedure where prosecutors and defense attorneys examine each perspective jur
to see if they're suitable to serve. Insider's attempts to
reach Easter were unsuccessful. So again, it's another jur who
(17:41):
was suffering from delusions of grandeur and inserting themselves as
the hero of the story. During questioning, Easter was asked
if he had ever been the victim of a crime,
to which he answered that he had not. According to More,
hypothetically this was a consensual, statutory rape situation, then he
(18:03):
didn't consider himself a victim. More told Insider his parents
were the ones who prosecuted, So I guess. I mean,
you could say you're not a victim there, but that's
kind of flimsy because your parents prosecuted. See. Look, here's
the thing. If you're going for jury duty, just be
up front and whatever happens happens. Easter was the very
(18:26):
last jur to be selected, and neither side asked him
very many questions, according to Jan Norman, another prosecutor in
the Vanderbilt case. Norman said the state didn't have jurors
fill out questionnaires for the first trial, but did use
the forms in the retrial to make sure no potential
jurors had watched the first trial on television. The state
(18:47):
asked jurors the exact same questions during questioning in the retrial.
According to More, experts have told Insider that it's possible
jurors in the Maxwell case could face perjury charges lied
about their experiences with sexual abuse during the questioning, and
that's definitely the jeopardy for Scotti David, and that's why
(19:09):
he has retained Todd Spodeck as his lawyer. He understands
he's in some jeopardy here, and if you lie during
something like this, it's certainly a perjury charge come in
your way. Potential jurors were given a questionnaire to fill
out that asked, have you or a friend or a
family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual
(19:30):
abuse or sexual assault. While the answers to the jurors
questionnaires are sealed, court transcripts showed David was not asked
follow up questions on the subject during questioning, suggesting that
he did not disclose his experience on the form. I mean,
that's what it would suggest, right, But again, I'm not
willing to go all the way here and say that's
(19:52):
one hundred percent fact until we get all of the information.
There's still the possibility that Maxwell's team missed all of this.
Not a very high point, but a possibility. Nonetheless. Reagan
told Insider that in his view, David doesn't appear to
have disclosed that he was a victim of sexual abuse
during Maxwell's trial, which he said lends itself to the
(20:14):
idea that he wanted to be on this jury. And
that's certainly what it's looking like, right. If he lied
to get on the jury, then he did it maliciously
because he had an extra grind, and that's not a
good thing. People who may have personal motivations for serving
on a jury are known as stealth jurors, and Moore
said there's ultimately no way to prevent one from being selected.
(20:35):
He emphasized that potential jurors should understand the gravity of
what they're being asked to do when they are selected
to serve on a jury in a criminal case. And
it's really a big deal, right, if you get selected
on a jury, you have somebody's life in your hands.
You have to take that seriously. It's one of the
very few things that you're asked to do for your country, basically,
(20:58):
and the only way the justice system can be is
if everyone involved in it is honest and truthful. More said,
that's the bottom line, and I would contend that that
works both ways. The federal government needs to be honest
and truthful as well, because we all know that they
don't like doing that. We all know the federal government
(21:18):
is less then honest, less then transparent. But I wanted
to share this article with you this morning to give
you a little more context, right, a little more meat
on the bone, because we're gonna come up to a
point where Judge Nathan's going to make her decision one
way or the other, and I just want to make
sure that we have as much information as possible till
(21:40):
we get to that point so we can see the
picture clearly. All Right, folks, that's gonna do it for
this morning's update. As usual, context episodes come in your way,
and then tonight I will be back with the evening
update where we check in on Uncle Touchy and the
fallout that continue used to glow around him. If you'd
(22:03):
like to contact me, you can do that at Bobby
Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com. That's b O B B
Y c A p U C c I at ProtonMail
dot com. You can also find me on Twitter at
b O B B Y underscore c A p U
C c I. The link that we discussed can be
found in the description box
What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
Hope that everybody's having a great Friday morning out there,
and hopefully you all have some fantastic plans locked in
for the weekend. As for me, I plan on waking
up tomorrow morning nice and early, heading to the mountains
for some climbing, then directly from there I'm going to
(00:22):
a sports card show to spend a bunch of money, obviously,
and after that, well it's directly home for a feast
of Italian food, playoff football, and finally UFC being back
after a three week hiatus, Come Sunday, Rinse and repeat. Well,
(00:45):
no card show Sunday for me, but everything else Rinse
and repeat. As well as working on a couple of
other projects that I've had in the cooker for a while,
one of them being a pretty in depth conversation I've
had with a couple of sources from Mexico who have
been detailing a bit of the behind the scenes action
(01:08):
as far as the cartel wars are going and the
whole entire drug war in general. So I've been talking
to these folks for quite some time, and finally I'm
putting it all together where I'm going to be able
to get a couple of episodes out for you folks,
so you could hear what these people had to say
(01:30):
as well. Now it's going to be in a interview format.
They're not going to come onto the show. It's not
really their thing to even be speaking to anybody. So
it's a kind of a protected source kind of deal.
But I did it kind of like a article form, right,
(01:52):
like we would read in one of these articles how
they do the question and answer session. That's sort of
what I did with these sources. And I'm going to
put it all together and we're going to talk about
it on the podcast in the coming weeks. Because what
they had to say about the connections between the cartels
groups in China, the fentanyl that's coming in illegal lithium mining,
(02:15):
it was mind blowing and jaw dropping, you know, the
sort of thing you would expect to hear if you
turn on the legacy media on your TV. But nope,
we don't hear anything like that. Instead, we just hear
more of the same there. Right. So, I've been digging
into this story for quite some time. I have a
few episodes that I've posted on my other podcast, that
(02:39):
relate to the war on drugs. I've posted a few
here already the series about Gary Webb, and I'm going
to post a couple of more to get things primed
up and ready to go for the eventual drop of
this project I'm working on, because I think that you're
all gonna find it very very interesting. The way that
(03:00):
they have been able to operate almost with impunity has
been very, very, very eye opening, and it just goes
to show you that these people and the reach that
they have, it's unbelievable. So that's something that's coming in
the next couple of weeks, and again, I think you
(03:22):
folks are going to find it very interesting. Some of
the stuff that we talked about, and some of the
revelations that these folks dropped on me were just insane,
Like the callousness of which violent acts are committed. It's
just part and parcel for the way that things are
(03:43):
down there. It's so bad that you have local communities
rallying together, creating their own defense units because the government
can't protect them. So you basically have a civilization down
in mecha Ago right now where the government's only nom
(04:03):
nominally in charge, and you know, on the world stage,
of course they're in charge, but I'm talking about inside
of their own country. And with all of that power
that these cartels are wielding down in Mexico, you better
believe that they've been branching out and they've been working
with people on the mainland of China, especially to bring
(04:25):
fentanyl into Mexico so that in turn, they can you know,
use it to cut other drugs, send it into America
with their other shipments. And we all know the misery
that you know has been brought with the fentanyl explosion
here in America. We thought crack was bad, and don't
(04:46):
get me wrong, obviously you don't want to be a crackhead.
But what's going on with this fentanyl is just bad news, folks,
and we're gonna we're gonna tackle that as well, how
it's getting into the country, the process, all of it.
So be on the lookout for that, and obviously I'll
let you know when I'm going to upload that stuff.
But it was, man, I'll tell you some very interesting
(05:11):
conversations with these folks, and it was two different people.
One person located in let's say, a border town with
America and another one located in basically the heart of
cartel country. And that's about as far as I'll go
(05:32):
with their locations. But it has been an eye opening
experience to hear what they have to say, and I'm
definitely going to share that with all of you when
I get it all packaged and ready to go. So today,
what we're going to talk about, however, is a little
bit more about you know, who guilty Galaine and the
(05:58):
situation that we find ourselves in as far as a
potential mistrial here. Now. Again, look, just because we talk
about a mistrial, it doesn't mean that she's going to
get off, right, I just want to be very clear
about that. I think that if there is a mistrial,
she will be convicted. Once again. My point, when I
(06:18):
get agitated about it and you know, go crazy almost,
it's because why should these survivors have to relive this
all over again all because some juror wanted to be
a douche? Now do you really think that any juror
(06:38):
in a new trial is going to let her off
with all of the evidence that's been presented. Come on,
just think back to the testimony. What exactly did the
defense bring to the table. Elizabeth LOFTUS give me a break.
Compared to all of the other testimony from Carolyn, from Annie,
from the other Jane, does you really think that Glane
(07:01):
Maxwell is gonna get off? All this does is prolong
the misery for the survivors, and I think that's why
it's so agitating for people. I definitely don't think that
she'll be getting off if a mistrial is called. I
think that it'll be the same result, but just a
prolonged situation for people who have already been victimized enough.
(07:25):
So that's where my biggest issue is. And of course,
if juror number fifty Scottie David did lie, then I
have a big issue with that as well. I think
that we need to make sure that a trial, especially
is as fair and impartial as possible. It's all fine
and well when it's somebody like Glanne Maxwell up there
(07:45):
and she's about to get railroaded or there was impropriety,
and you know, it's easy to want to look the
other way, right, It's easy to want to say, ah,
to hell with it, it's just a monster like Thelane Maxwell.
But that helps promote the broken system and I will
not be part of that. I want this system fixed.
I want the Bureau of Prisons fixed. I want the
(08:07):
Department of Justice fixed. And just shrugging your shoulders and saying,
add no big deal, she's a monster anyway, that's not
going to get it done for me. I don't want
there to be any doubt. I want this lady to
go to prison for the rest of her life with
no doubt about it. And if jur number fifty lied
on that questionnaire, that could impede the process a bit,
(08:29):
but I don't think that's the end of it. I
don't think she gets off because of this. I don't
think any jury in their right mind would ever let
this lady off. And that's just by hearing what we've
heard in the trial. Imagine if they really put her
on blast and went crazy and laid out all of
the alleged crimes that she has committed. Now, I know
(08:51):
the non prosecution agreement really stops them from doing that,
but it can't stop us from talking about it, right,
And it's a shame that it will never be exposed
the way it should be because of that non prosecution agreement.
But Gleagne Maxwell and her attempts to try and latch
(09:12):
onto this as a mistrial and her getting off. That's
not going to work. And I'm pretty confident when I
say that. Now we have a case that is relatively
similar to this, and that is the Vanderbilt rape case
and the retrial that ended up happening for two of
the participants because one of the jurors was untruthful and
(09:36):
the end result obviously was still a conviction, but they
did get another trial. So when we talk about this,
that's my goal, just to prepare you for the eventuality
that we might see another trial here. It doesn't mean
that I think she's gonna get off. I certainly do not.
I've been pretty clear about that, I think, and I
(09:56):
think that when we look at this other case, the
built case, it kind of gives you a glimpse into
the future if this does go to a mistrial. So
let's take a look at this article from Insider and
let's see what Kenneth Neiemeier, the author has to say headline,
(10:17):
Glenn Maxwell case gives flashbacks to lawyers who worked on
Vanderbilt rape retrial. And again, you always want to look
for precedent, right, things that have come before, cases that
are similar, because that's how you can draw a more
educated opinion on things, and if it's something that has
never happened before, there's no comparisons. Well, you're kind of,
(10:38):
you know, swimming without a life vest. But when you
have something to compare it to, it's a little easier
to look at all of the particulars and say to yourself,
all right, this is where it adds up. This is
where it doesn't add up. And when you look at
the Vanderbilt rape trial, there are certainly a lot of
echoes of the of the the Maxwell verdict. Here. When
(11:04):
Nashville prosecutor Roger Moore heard that two jurors who convicted
Glene Maxwell later revealed they are survivors of sexual abuse,
he thought to himself, been there, done that. In twenty fifteen,
More led the prosecution of two former Vanderbilt University football players,
Brandon Vandenberg and Corey Beatty, on charges of raping a
(11:27):
fellow student on campus. Two other former players also face
charges in connection with the rape. Now, imagine what kind
of animal you have to be. First of all, you're
getting a huge privilege to be a football player at Vanderbilt.
You know how many people would kill for that opportunity,
the chance to go to a great university like Vanderbilt,
(11:50):
get a scholarship to do so, go play football, get
an education, and these stupid idiot morons think it's a
good idea to raper girl. And we gotta be better, dudes, guys, fellas,
we gotta be better. And I know a lot of
dudes don't want to hear that, but it's a fact.
We got to treat teach our kids better, our nephews better,
(12:11):
and we need to be an example for them because
this shit isn't gonna It's not gonna fly. While a
state jerry convicted Vandenberg and Beatty, the judge ordered a
new trial after it came to light that the jerry's
foreman didn't disclose that he was a victim of sexual assault.
So you see the parallels here. And while Scotty David
(12:35):
wasn't the foreman, he was still a jur who, according
to reports, didn't disclose the issues that he had personally
as far as sexual abuse. So that certainly gives them
something to sink their teeth in, Meaning the defense having
a guilty verdict overturned due to a juror's actions is
(12:55):
frustrating beyond belief for prosecutors. More told Insider Vandenberg and
Beatty were each retried and convicted in twenty sixteen. Both
men were sentenced to fifteen years in prison. So you see,
on the retrial it didn't change things, right, The evidence
is still the same. And any jury that's sitting in
(13:15):
and hearing this kind of evidence like they heard in
the Vanderbilt case, or like they will hear in the
Maxwell case if it is a mistrial, they're gonna come
to the same conclusion. Nobody in their right mind is
going to sit down and say, ah, you know, I
think Delaine Maxwell is innocent. I think all of this
evidence is bs. They're just trying to go after her
(13:37):
because she's rich. What sort of dumbass a strategy is
that it's ridiculous. In fact, ultimately we got the same result.
More told Insider, we just had to do it twice.
Legal experts have told Insider that it's very likely Maxwell,
(13:59):
a former law longtime associate, co conspirator, general all around scumbag,
fellow child abuser of disgraced financier pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, we'll
get a new trial on sex trafficking charges. After two
jurors revealed that they were victims of sexual abuse. And again,
it all hinges on what they told the court in
(14:20):
that questionnaire. Right, If they told the court that they
were abused and the defense missed it, that's on them.
One juror, who identified himself as Scotty David, told The
Independent that his experience that his experience as a survivor
of abuse led him to believe some of the women
who testified against Maxwell, despite gaps in their recollections. The
(14:43):
jury went silent when he shared his story during deliberations,
David said, and again, I don't know if I believe that.
We haven't heard from anybody else on this jury. So
Scotty David is just, you know, he's the narrator, the
reliable narrator for this whole story, all right, I guess.
A second anonymous juror told The New York Times that
(15:04):
they also shared their experience being sexually abused as a
child during deliberations, which they said appeared to help shape
the jury's discussions in the Vanderbilt case. According to Moore
Jerry Foreman, Todd Easter's revelation came after a man who
was convicted of sexually assaulting Easter saw him give a
television interview about the trial. Wow, so talk about, you know,
(15:29):
getting caught by fate. You're out there doing an interview
and you get nailed by well, I shouldn't say nailed.
But the guy who you know did that to you,
sees what's going on? Sh talk about coincidence. He said
to himself, Wait a minute, how did that guy get
in a Jerry Moore said, so, he notifies defense attorneys
(15:51):
and they raised the issue. So this scumbag who abused
this dude not only abused him, according to the juror's
account here from the Vanderbilt trial, he also called the
defense attorneys afterwards and said, Hey, this guy shouldn't be
on the trial. What an absolute scumbag. Randy Reagan, a
defense attorney who represented Vandenburgh during the retrial, told Insider
(16:14):
that Easter had lobbied to be the jury foreman for
his first trial and was very forceful during deliberations. Easter
later told the court that when he was seventeen, he
had a consensual sexual relationship with a man in his twenties.
While Easter did not discuss his personal experience during jury deliberations,
Judge Monty Watkins wrote in his ruling declaring a mistrial
(16:36):
that actual bias had clearly been shown in the case.
And this is one thing that I do fear that
Judge Nathan will see that as well and order a
new trial here. Judge Nathan has admonished the government before,
and she has won after the SDNY before, So my
question is what is she going to do here? More
(17:00):
and Reagan both told Insider that the Vanderbilt rape case
was the only trial they've ever worked on where a
juror's conduct resulted in a retrial. It's not very common, right,
We talked about this a little bit. It is not
very often that a judge or a court is going
to go back on a ruling and change things. That's
what appeals are for. Morse At his office did not
(17:21):
pursue perjury charges against Easter because prosecutors could not prove
that he knowingly lied during the questioning. The pre trial
procedure where prosecutors and defense attorneys examine each perspective jur
to see if they're suitable to serve. Insider's attempts to
reach Easter were unsuccessful. So again, it's another jur who
(17:41):
was suffering from delusions of grandeur and inserting themselves as
the hero of the story. During questioning, Easter was asked
if he had ever been the victim of a crime,
to which he answered that he had not. According to More,
hypothetically this was a consensual, statutory rape situation, then he
(18:03):
didn't consider himself a victim. More told Insider his parents
were the ones who prosecuted, So I guess. I mean,
you could say you're not a victim there, but that's
kind of flimsy because your parents prosecuted. See. Look, here's
the thing. If you're going for jury duty, just be
up front and whatever happens happens. Easter was the very
(18:26):
last jur to be selected, and neither side asked him
very many questions, according to Jan Norman, another prosecutor in
the Vanderbilt case. Norman said the state didn't have jurors
fill out questionnaires for the first trial, but did use
the forms in the retrial to make sure no potential
jurors had watched the first trial on television. The state
(18:47):
asked jurors the exact same questions during questioning in the retrial.
According to More, experts have told Insider that it's possible
jurors in the Maxwell case could face perjury charges lied
about their experiences with sexual abuse during the questioning, and
that's definitely the jeopardy for Scotti David, and that's why
(19:09):
he has retained Todd Spodeck as his lawyer. He understands
he's in some jeopardy here, and if you lie during
something like this, it's certainly a perjury charge come in
your way. Potential jurors were given a questionnaire to fill
out that asked, have you or a friend or a
family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual
(19:30):
abuse or sexual assault. While the answers to the jurors
questionnaires are sealed, court transcripts showed David was not asked
follow up questions on the subject during questioning, suggesting that
he did not disclose his experience on the form. I mean,
that's what it would suggest, right, But again, I'm not
willing to go all the way here and say that's
(19:52):
one hundred percent fact until we get all of the information.
There's still the possibility that Maxwell's team missed all of this.
Not a very high point, but a possibility. Nonetheless. Reagan
told Insider that in his view, David doesn't appear to
have disclosed that he was a victim of sexual abuse
during Maxwell's trial, which he said lends itself to the
(20:14):
idea that he wanted to be on this jury. And
that's certainly what it's looking like, right. If he lied
to get on the jury, then he did it maliciously
because he had an extra grind, and that's not a
good thing. People who may have personal motivations for serving
on a jury are known as stealth jurors, and Moore
said there's ultimately no way to prevent one from being selected.
(20:35):
He emphasized that potential jurors should understand the gravity of
what they're being asked to do when they are selected
to serve on a jury in a criminal case. And
it's really a big deal, right, if you get selected
on a jury, you have somebody's life in your hands.
You have to take that seriously. It's one of the
very few things that you're asked to do for your country, basically,
(20:58):
and the only way the justice system can be is
if everyone involved in it is honest and truthful. More said,
that's the bottom line, and I would contend that that
works both ways. The federal government needs to be honest
and truthful as well, because we all know that they
don't like doing that. We all know the federal government
(21:18):
is less then honest, less then transparent. But I wanted
to share this article with you this morning to give
you a little more context, right, a little more meat
on the bone, because we're gonna come up to a
point where Judge Nathan's going to make her decision one
way or the other, and I just want to make
sure that we have as much information as possible till
(21:40):
we get to that point so we can see the
picture clearly. All Right, folks, that's gonna do it for
this morning's update. As usual, context episodes come in your way,
and then tonight I will be back with the evening
update where we check in on Uncle Touchy and the
fallout that continue used to glow around him. If you'd
(22:03):
like to contact me, you can do that at Bobby
Kapuchi at ProtonMail dot com. That's b O B B
Y c A p U C c I at ProtonMail
dot com. You can also find me on Twitter at
b O B B Y underscore c A p U
C c I. The link that we discussed can be
found in the description box
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.