Ghislane Maxwell Trial Juror Misconduct
Ghislane Maxwell was convicted of human trafficking last month due to helping Jeffrey Epstein lure and groom underage girls for sex. Her lawyers have moved for a mistrial based on juror misconduct. Maxwell’s defense was basically this: None of the girls ever mentioned her during the investigation of Epstein, her name was brought out only after Epstein died in custody and when law enforcement began looking for someone else to prosecute for the abuse of these girls, and this is all bogus. The Prosecution’s response was basically this—trauma victims often remember things in unorganized ways, their failure to mention Maxwell until late in the investigation is understandable. Lawyers involved in criminal trials get to interview the potential jurors called in for a case and can exclude a handful of jurors (usually five to ten depending on the court and kind of case) that the lawyers just do not want on the final jury. In a case where trauma victim memory is a critical issue, Maxwell’s lawyers obviously asked potential jurors if they had ever experienced sexual or any other abuse. The juror now accused of misconduct did not report any abuse (aka, he lied).
After Maxwell was convicted, the juror went on a TV show and said that his prior abuse was a factor in the jury’s decision. He claimed that there were two jurors that did not want to convict Maxwell, but, after he told them how his memory worked after his traumatic abuse, those two jurors changed their minds and voted to convict—exactly why Maxwell’s lawyers wanted to keep abuse victims off the jury, and her attorneys have asked the Court to give them a new trial because this juror lied during pre-trial questioning. Jurors swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury in the pre-trial questioning, and, if this juror lied, I hope he is prosecuted for perjury and sent to prison. Don’t get me wrong, if the allegations against her are true, Ghislane Maxwell is scum and deserves to be in prison, but everyone in the Courtroom should tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the process of sending her up the river.
Sotomayor’s Stunning Error Reveals Bias
Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor claimed last month during oral arguments over President Biden’s vaccine mandate that the Omicron variant is so severe that “we have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, many on ventilators.” Official data indicate there were just 5,000 children in hospitals at the time with very few of them on ventilators. She was wildly, shockingly, stunningly incorrect. Sotomayor is considered a liberal justice, aligned with the left, and President Biden’s press secretary has refused to comment on the mistake despite direct questions. Judges are expected to know the facts of the case, and Covid numbers are certainly facts of the vaccine mandate debate.
Left or right, DEM or GOP, Americans should be concerned when a Supreme Court Judge is so severely misinformed, and, conveniently, misinformed in a direction that supports a political ally (Biden who issued the mandate and wants it to be upheld as constitutional). Judges are not supposed to play politics, and Sotomayor is obviously playing politics, which is troubling. Perhaps more importantly though, her statement has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the vaccine mandate. Either the President, through OSHA, can constitutionally mandate vaccines or not, the number of sick children does not play into the constitutional analysis. It is a separation of powers question. Whether she likes the mandate, or I like the mandate, or if the whole country likes the mandate makes no difference. As a Supreme Court Justice, she should know that. (Not to mention that vaccines appear to not work on Omicron anyway).
Mississippi Medical Marijuana Update
A new bill to legalize medical marijuana was introduced this month. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves has already threatened to veto the measure over its proposed purchase limits, which he says are too high, but supportive lawmakers are confident they can override any veto. The new bill, SB 2095, allows patients with about two dozen specific medical conditions to qualify for medical marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation, with further conditions able to be added later by regulators. The proposed qualifying conditions include cancer, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, muscular dystrophy, glaucoma, spastic quadriplegia, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis, Alzheimer’s, sickle-cell anemia, Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis, neuropathy, spinal cord disease or injury, chronic medical conditions or treatments that produce severe nausea, wasting, seizures, or chronic pain. Registered patients would be limited to one “medical cannabis equivalency unit” per day, which the bill defines as 3.5 grams of cannabis flower, 1 gram of concentrate, or up to 100 milligrams of THC in infused products. Those limits are significantly lower than in most states, but Reeves has said the program should allow only half those amounts. Smoking and vaping cannabis would remain illegal in public and in motor vehicles. In the world of legalized marijuana, this proposed system is on the strict side. The qualifying conditions are severe diseases. The daily limits are low. If you think that generally legal marijuana consumption is right around the corner in Mississippi, think again.
