Maxwell's conviction of 5 out of 6 counts will obviously lead to a hefty sentence though it is unlikely to reach a 65 year level. There are aggravating factors to push the guidelines higher but most first offenders would be looking at less than 20 years.
...What is interesting about the case were the risk profiles in the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution minimized the risk of gaps or contradictions in memory by calling only four victims. The defense decided not to call Maxwell to minimize that risk...
...The difference is that the prosecution can generally do with a minimized case when there are victims to testify. I do not blame the defense however. I cannot imagine how Maxwell could stand up to a cross examination given her reprehensible conduct.
...I think that the jury got this one right. There are however some appellate issues. One will be the court's pushing the jury to reach a verdict. That is common in such cases but this judge was a bit more direct in pushing the jury...
...It is however difficult generally to win on those types of instructions. The defense was openly upset with the language used by the court, but it will be a hard case to make on appeal.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When you consider these five convictions for Maxwell, this picture becomes more glaring in the total absence of prosecution for the men on the other end of these flights. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8…
...from the outset, the DOJ seemed eager to scuttle any prosecution of the johns in this sex trafficking scheme with the infamous plea deal for Epstein...
...While the SDNY expressed outrage over the crimes and aggressively pursued Maxwell, that unrelenting effort seemed to stop with Maxwell. There is a long list of male figures on these flights including two former presidents, a prince, and a couple billionaires.
Defense counsel Earl Gray is now hitting the prosecutor on her dismissing the testimony of police officers as biased "family members." That is a better point of attack created unnecessarily by Eldridge in framing her closing.
Gray is attacking the state witness on deadly force and noting that he may charge up to 95k while the defense witness does not charge. He is also highlighting the background of the officers dismissed by Eldridge. This is much more effective.
...These are the types of arguments that can hit below the waterline for the prosecution. Again, Eldridge made it worse by attacking the officers as unreliable.
The prosecutor in the Potter case just said this was not some "oopsy." She is offering a detailed account on the elements. The problem is that the element with the least attention: Potter had to "consciously disregard" the risk. That is the distinction with simple negligence.
...Notably, Erin Eldridge seemed to declare the police witnesses as "biased" as "members of the family" of officers. She encouraged the jury to look to witnesses removed from that "family."
It is interesting to hear a prosecutor making the "thin blue line" bias argument against officer testimony. Former Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon testified Potter was a "fine officer" and that he would not have fired her without due process.
Eldridge is continuing to drill down as Potter is sobbing that she did not want to hurt anyone. This remains me of the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial. The court is now sustaining objections to the prosecutor's questions.
... I think Erin Eldridge lost serious ground in her final examination. The lack of response to the sobbing witness was stark and chilling...
...The irony is that Eldridge was attacking Potter for a lack of concern for anyone else at the scene after she broke down. However, Eldridge was showing the same utter detachment in front of the jury in the face of a sobbing witness.
Potter is a complex witness. She often sounds mechanical and, with the prosecutor, technical. However, she began to breakdown immediately when returned to that day...
...The vital element for the jury is whether she evidenced the type of criminal conduct captured by the statute as opposed to simple negligence.
The more human she appears on the stand, the less culpable she will appear in that jury room. In a curious way, her rigidity in testimony made her breakdown more credible. She is clearly someone who tries to be controlled and precise. It is similar to what we saw in Rittenhouse.
The pandemic now seems to have reached the mythic levels of gods who once were blamed for everything that went wrong in life. The Norse had the trickster Loki. For politicians, a lurking Loki explains that social problems are not really of their making... jonathanturley.org/2021/12/06/the…
...While many politicians call for “reimagining policing,” that imagination does not extend to seeing a cause-and-effect on crime. It is the Loki effect of the pandemic. The fact is that most criminals are rational actors who make a calculus of risk in the commission of offenses.
...While the White House may not see the cause-and-effect realities, these felons certainly see the cost-benefit realities. Even in a pandemic, most of us do not look for a Givenchy store to grab an essential diamond-encrusted purse...