Why Ghislaine Maxwell Was Convicted (And How A Juror Might Undo It)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2022
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
A juror may have lied. Maxwell may get a new trial as a result.
GiveWell is matching donations from first-time donors dollar for dollar up to $250. Click legaleagle.link/givewell (and use the code LEGALEAGLE).
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
1:50 - Chapter 1 - Who is Ghislaine Maxwell ?
5:20 - Chapter 2 - What was Maxwell's role ?
7:35 - Chapter 3 - Maxwell's charges
7:40 - Chapter 3.1 - Sex trafficking a minor
8:45 - Chapter 3.2 - Enticing a minor to travel and transporting a minor
9:55 - Chapter 3.3 - 3 conspiracies charges
11:05 - Chapter 4 - Maxwell defense
11:55 - Chapter 5 - Federal sentencing guidelines
13:20 - Chapter 6 - Perjury charges
14:40 - Chapter 7 - Jurors speaks out
16:35 - Chapter 8 - Voir Dire
17:20 - Chapter 9 - What's the standard for a fair trial because a juror lied ?
⚖ What should I cover next?
🎗 Get your GiveWell donation matched up to $250! legaleagle.link/givewell (code LEGALEAGLE).
Please cover the LAPD Pokémon Go case! We need a lighter episode to balance this one out.
I feel looking at what powers HOAs have could be interested. I'm sure there's plenty of entertaining battles that have happened too.
Please do NFTs. I feel like that could be right in your wheelhouse and the future of copyright law.
I don’t know if you’ve already done this. But the whole “Epstein didn’t kill himself” conspiracy
Another one could be patent law and IP. I know Google just lost a substantial case against Bose.
I feel like calling her a "first time offender" is kinda a stretch for 2+ decades of trafficking minors...
Yeah to put this in perspective every war criminal at Nuremberg trials were technically first time offenders. They just weren't penalized under the third Reich.
Not if you are talking about it in legal terms. Which is clearly implied by the fact you are watching legaleagle...
Yeah, it's surprisingly bad wording for a legal term. "First time conviction" would be more correct.
@@bubbamaster3116 Everytime someone says "The Law" as a monolithic entity I think of that terrible Judge Dredd Sylvester Stallone movie "I am the Law!"
By learn the law what on Earth do you mean? OHSA violations? Fair Dealing protections?
We all make mistakes
I knew a man who was sentenced to 19 years for selling marijuana, a substance that is now legal when he was sentenced. To hear that a woman who preyed on young girls and destroyed hundreds of lives may get 25 years is very frustrating in that light.
Yep. In America you can traffic in young girls and keep your job in congress too as long as your not caught smoking a joint.
Was that man rich and/or white? Because those are prerequisites for being treated like a human being by the US legal system
@@guy-sl3kr Neither white nor rich. Funny how that works.
Verb tense and punctuation matter 🤷♂️
i can literally 100% guarantee that did not happen. there had to have been aggravating factors or something else
I really appreciate that you use the word “underage girls” and “girls.” To often we hear the words “underage women.” The distinction is important!
I have never before heard the phrase "underage women".
@@robgronotte1 Senator Geatz has been using it a lot to describe the minor he raped.
@@robgronotte1 just because you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean many people don’t say it.
Underage women simply means that they began menstruating before their 18th birthday, does it not? Seems fairly common...
The older I get it becomes perfectly clear that teenagers/high school-aged are 100% children. To consider how ill-equipped we all were to be dealing in the often murky waters of love and sex at that age, it makes it doubly scary thinking about incredibly “good” predators with resources makes me sick. Seeing a 14-15 year old girl is literally just looking at a child-nothing sexual enters my mind. I hope she’ll pay for what she’s done.
I'm glad he clarified that "experienced trauma" does not equal "impartial." Honestly, I think NOT experiencing trauma can cause its own kind of bias. Like, some people don't understand that it can be hard to clearly recall details around a traumatic event. They have a bias towards trusting their own memories because they have never had their memories questioned under pressure, never been gaslit and forced to collect evidence about their own experiences, never had their brain tune out something awful because you could not be a functioning human being if you were always thinking about what happened, never had a shocking realization that "oh wow, that was NOT NORMAL" because your baseline for normal got warped....
In short, if you have no one on your jury who experienced any kind of PTSD, that's not an unbiased jury. That's like saying a white jury is more impartial because they aren't biased by experiencing racism. The only way to have an unbiased jury is to have a spectrum of experiences.
Thats absurd. None of that is part of an impartial jury. An impartial jury means no opinion on a case, and not being swayed by media or opinions of others.
In fact, a person who suffered trauma is generally NOT impartial, because they may use their own experience in their decisions. That's wrong.
And yes, im a lawyer.
Congrats on just ignoring the person's point. People without PTSD *also* use their own experiences and are clouded by those experiences. They're not objectively more correct because they didn't have certain life experiences.
@@stonehorn4641 That's the thing that gets me. You say that there's "no opinion" on trauma for people who haven't experienced it. But there are so many people whose only experience with trauma comes from media that glorifies, stereotypes, or fetishizes it. That's also a major form of bias.
An example is when a teacher asked me why I didn't try to hurt my abuser when explaining my experiences in early middle school. In her mind, once assaulted, people go John Wick on the person. Because the idea of staying quiet and fearful was unthinkable to her- because that's almost never how it was portrayed in the media she consumed.
By keeping people who have experience SA out of the jury pool, you are relying on people whose experiences may not reflect reality. Which is a lot like getting gun safety classes from people who've only ever played the original Doom. Y'know?
I think our current idea of an impartial jury is very flawed, to be honest. It's definitely a good idea to strive for, but I wonder if we sometimes cut our own noses off to spite our faces.
@@Nyanx4 Yes! If you're doing a medical malpractice case, and everyone on the jury only knows about medicine from badly researched episodes of ER, that's not neutral. Same goes for trauma.
Also, I hate the idea that I'm forever impartial because I have struggled with mental health and PTSD. Because of years of research, therapy and personal practice, I know sooo much about my brain that most people never question. I know the way my heart and thoughts race when I have been triggered. I know what steps to take to calm down, look at the situation rationally and handle it in a way that supports my own healing without hurting anybody else. I have a checklist of questions I go through to find out whether I am legitimately being threatened, or whether I am just being reminded of a past threat. How many "normal" people can say the same? Because I've known a lot of people who regularly confuse their personal feelings with reality.
@@Nyanx4 the law isn't perfect, but its the best system we have.
Letting rape victims (as an example) be on a jury for a rape trial just doesn't work. In general, they can't be objective as a juror in that type of case. We would never consider it, nor should we.
It’s frustrating to hear “first time offender” when this wasn’t a one-time thing. I get it, it’s based on how many times you’ve been before a judge already and if you were punished before but god, she isn’t a “first time offender”. She partook in multiple criminal activities, this is just the first time she’s being judged for them.
Yeah its a little but stupid, say in the case of a serial killer doesn't get cause for 20 years and then claims they are a first time offender...
Just because its the first time you have been caught shouldn't count as first time offence but then on the other hand if someone is arrested for criminal damage and then someone turns around and claims a few years previous they had throw a rock through a window so it wasn't a first offence.
Can be seen both ways but in this case it was the same crimes over and over again for decades she should be convinced of each crime individually without the statute of limitations being put into place since the crime was on going.
Someone should make "first time conviction" the default since it's technically more accurate.
@@Ilix42 This & the original comment were my thoughts. It isn't her first offense, it's her first time getting caught.
First time isn't a catch-all for leniency. During the sentencing all of the factors you stated will be brought up and they can sentence based on that. If first time offender was a loophole then someone convicted of first degree murder would not be eligible for the death penalty.
@@SMALLTOWNREACTIONS Plus it was mentioned Maxwell faces up to 40 years on just one of the counts. She's 60 years old.
Great timing, Judge Caplain just gave the go ahead for Virginia Giuffre to pursue a civil case against Prince Andrew.
Wih the queen would throw him in the Tower.
@@loner1878 no he’s her favorite son and she’s protecting him
@@dominiquejones6758 maybe. Though we've seen with the royal families of the past that if it means that the monarchy will be secured for future generations, the imprisonment, even if just temporarily until people aren't looking anymore, is a small price to pay.
And? Means nothing, two different countries for a start. He, just like you or I, can't be extradited for a civil trial. Plus he does diplomatic immunity.
He’ll never go to prison. None of the Royal family want that precedent
02:21 "laundering pension funds". He took the money that his employees had spent their whole working life paying into a pension fund. A fund which is strictly legally protected, and spent it trying to keep his bankrupt companies afloat. The money is gone, the employees are getting by on what they can, and a lot ore on state support for the poor. That's not laundering it's stealing.
Yeah, I found his description of the behaviour of ALL of the accused in this case REALLY light to the point of being inaccurate/deceitful. Also the way he brushed off the “conspiracy theory” of Epstein’s elite connections was sketchy. Like, who DOESNT realize that this was an elite pedo ring?
@@blammela it was KOMPROMAT targeting scientists, and political, and business figures
White collar crimes are completely different to blue collar crimes and require sanitised obscure language, because the system is set up by the ones who do the white collar crimes. Steal $1000 put one person in hospital, 10 years in maximum security. Embezzle $100m, cause 1000 suicides, 2 years house arrest at your beachside mansion
It could be laundering if he wasn't the one doing the stealing, but was helping other people who had stolen the money clean the money. (I know nothing about the case, just pointing out that term could be correct.)
@@renedegames7219 from my reading of his backstory, it was both
Her being called a first time offender is like Jeffrey Dahmer being called a first time offender in his trial. Just because they haven't been caught before doesn't mean that they aren't a monster that knows exactly what they're doing.
Oh, she's with that Maxwell family? That's hilarious. That particular Maxwell family is also tied up in the Battle for the rights over Tetris, in gaming history. Robert's son basically tried to screw his way into getting the rights to publish the game. Turns out though, no one ever had the right to give it to him in the first place, and after the Maxwell company refused to answer a telex message regarding right of first refusal, they lost all of the rights to everything related to Tetris as a whole to Nintendo.
Seriously, that whole family is pretty scummy.
I’m guessing you’re also a gaming historian fan?
Really though, it is interesting how the same handful of rich and powerful people tend to get wrapped up in one controversial scandal after another.
@@swimmyswim417 It always seems to go back to rich people with ties to the Russian elites...
Scummy isn't even close. Her father was a war criminal for executing surrendered soldiers and German public officials and he was one of the largest corporate thief's of the 20th century! Al Capone looks like an angel next to Robert Maxwell.
I think she got used to a cushy rich lifestyle then her father dying in the middle of an embezzlement scandal basically wiped out the family fortune. I don't think the elder Maxwell inspired very scrupulous standards in her nor gave her the education to make it on her own and found one way she could make a lot of money was being a fixer for a rich pervert.
Maybe it wasn't quite that direct, she just thought she could shack up with a billionaire and she'd be set for life. But when he didn't want to get married and as she got older and she noticed Epstein was interested in younger and younger girls she found her way to avoid getting dumped was to do what he may have been too afraid to do himself. Get these young girls for him.
I'm only speculating but greed makes more sense as a motive than her love of Epstein or her own perversion. If it was love, they'd marry to give her all the legal mutual protection of marriage.
It makes sense that she saw Epstein as her meal ticket and the only way she was staying on the gravy train was doing... what no one else would do.
If some people in a family are bad that doesn't mean "that whole family is pretty scummy"
1:50 - Chapter 1 - Who is Ghislaine Maxwell ?
5:20 - Chapter 2 - What was Maxwell's role ?
7:35 - Chapter 3 - Maxwell's charges
7:40 - Chapter 3.1 - Sex trafficking a minor
8:45 - Chapter 3.2 - Enticing a minor to travel and transporting a minor
9:55 - Chapter 3.3 - 3 conspiracies charges
11:05 - Chapter 4 - Maxwell defense
11:55 - Chapter 5 - Federal sentencing guidelines
13:20 - Chapter 6 - Perjury charges
14:40 - Chapter 7 - Jurors speaks out
16:35 - Chapter 8 - Voir Dire
17:20 - Chapter 9 - What's the standard for a fair trial because a juror lied ?
20:50 - End roll ads
thank you
Good human.
Omg 💛
Thank you!
Hero
The private jet was called “The Lolita Express”. They flaunted their crimes knowing that there are two justice systems in this world.
That implies that there actually is a justice system for the rich and powerful, when in fact there is not
I know! Always found that very messed up. As if raping children was something to brag about for normal sane humans.
Just comes off as if he was making fun at the fact that many people knew what he did for a living, and he could just pay it away (or use blackmail).
I wish we still used cruel punishment for crimes against children.
Crush the serial pedophiles with stones!
I’ve heard it said “we don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system”, and man that explains so much.
@@cjxgraphics Yes. The law is designed to create a stable status quo and protect the rights and privileges of those in charge, and its function is largely unrelated to actual justice. The fact that justice is rarely met for poor people and rich alike makes this very clear.
It was called that by news media.
Does anyone remember that part at the end of Twilight New Moon, where Edward and Bella are leaving from the home of the vampire council? As they're leaving, a tour guide is showing a group of human tourists into the home, and the doors are shut to screaming.
She's the tour guide, not a bystander.
... Your point is deminished when you use Twillight as your analogy since that entire series is about manipulation of a young woman.
@Etarnalazure i was specifically making a comparison to the scene, but yes i totally agree. Bella is a victim
@@rasmusazu No the entire series is the sexual fantasy of Stephanie Meyer. Bella is Stephanie's self insert. It's not meant to be a guide book to healthy relationships.
Has there ever been a case where this juror issue has actually worked in the favor of a regular, normal, everyday American? It seems to work VERY frequently for the wealthy and connected.
It probably happens often but you don't hear about because «Jerry from across town got a new trial in his drug case» doesn't sell as well
@@gufosufo337 Yep, this exactly. I worked on a Habeas Corpus case about 20 years ago that involved the defense attorney and jury, but the original case was about drugs and gangs and the defendant was black, so no one heard about it.
To be fair I'm not sure it's that the jury is biased. I think for the most part juries enforce the law fairly, but the legal system itself is heavily skewed in favor of the rich and powerful.
Jurors in most cases don’t tend to go and do media interviews after the trial where they admit to (potentially) lying about their past.
Those who can afford to buy juries - or Supreme Court "Justices" tend to get away, they get the best juries money can buy. All it takes is ONE paid plant to hang a jury instead of the offender.
What's the word for frustration with a system but not being surprised when it disappoints you? America?
probably being alive
Being jaded?
Disenfranchised?
Oh this isn't just the usa. Something so similar happened in Belgium a few decades ago.
Resigned, if you take no action. Opportunity, if you take action.
As an Australian, the fact that jurors are allowed to talk to anyone not in the jury about what happened in the case is strange to me.
They’re not allowed to talk to anyone about the case until the verdict is announced. This is because people on the jury become targets, as well. Even though it’s still discouraged to talk about cases after they have reached a verdict, anyone on a jury may be thrown out if they found out that someone has talked about the case beyond the room they’re sent to to discuss the case.
They shouldn't and they're not to. My co-worker was part of a murder trial and I covered for her. Everyone knew she was a juror, stabbing under a highway pass. The days she was in she posted a print on the back of her computer screen, which was towards the door, it said "Do not ask or speak to/or around me about the x case". So as soon as you entered you read that. She never spoke about it, even afterwards. But he was found guilty.
The American jury selection process is so different from in the U.K. I have done jury duty twice in the U.K. and the only questions I remember being asked were to confirm that I didn’t know anyone involved in the case such as the defendant or any of the lawyers.
Then the UK has a pretty unfair system imo, because if you are a pedophile, we don't really want you on the jury for this case.
I’m pretty sure there’s been people who have gone to prison longer than her just for growing weed
There’s a man serving a life sentence for stealing a stapler. 3rd strike. What a waste.
Another person has a life sentence for stealing hedge clippers, and yet another person for stealing a calculator.
Some people are in prison just because they're a dark-skinned American and "fit a description".
Bro there's probably people still in jail for weed from before Epstein's first conviction.
Their mistake was being poor and non-white.
It still blows my mind that jurors can be questioned "have you ever been sexually assaulted" and use that to determine if they're "fair". But they never ask "has anyone ever committed sexual assault?"
Good point
im not sure if felons are elligible for jury duty also no ones going to say yes because they'd probably be arrested for admitting a crime its a useless question either way
Courts already prevent felons from serving on juries and usually asked if you been accused of any crimes in the past in general. Plus I would think that’s a 5A issue.
Dudes above assuming "rapist" or "person who committed sexual assault" de facto = felon disgustingly demonstrate extreme ignorance of the issues around prosecuting these sorts of things.
@@fthurman at which point youre basically asking someone to incriminate themselves which is something no one will do
It's absurd that lawyers get to pick juries. And being clueless about the realities of SA victims doesn't make a jurors impartial, it makes them unqualified in a world where SA victims are regularly scrutinized as though they were the perpetrators 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Legally, does the term "First time offender" translate to "First time convicted for the particular crime"? If so, that would mean no matter how many instances of that crime the individual had committed, because it was the first accusation that led to prosecution resulting in conviction within the legal system, it would qualify as a "first time offence", and regardless of whether or not the particular offence was the first, it was the first brought before the court successfully. Am I right? If so, then it means the public perception of the term "first time offender" is drastically out to lunch.
Edit: Changed 'prosecuted' to 'convicted' in the initial post.
Also, regarding the whole innocent until proven guilty thing in the subsequent comments, I don't think that's actually important to the point I was trying to make. Rather than addressing that aspect of law, or even rendering an opinion on it, I was merely attempting to clarify a specific definition of a phrase as used within the confines of a legal setting. This is, in some ways, akin to a ruling in a misplay of a card game like Magic: the Gathering, or Legend of the Five Rings. You need to ensure that the cards interact in the way you believe they do, lest you find yourself assuming a course of action is correct when it is in fact based on a false assumption of how the rules play out.
Actually, I highly recommend learning games like those to anyone interested in better understanding legal procedure. There seems to be a large degree of overlap in terms of mental headspace.
IANAL but as it was explained to me when I had to go to court, first-time offender basically means, "First time prosecuted for a crime."
Yes. Like many terms, the technical definition is very different from the public definition. A person who commits two crimes before being caught can be charged for 2 counts of that crime as their first offense. A person is only considered a repeat offender if there is record of them being informed of the criminality of their action and punished, and the person continues to commit the crime, fully aware of the criminality.
Yes, the term "first time offender" does mean "first time convicted" a particular crime
how else is it supposed to work? people could just say that the defendant had committed crimes other times but if the statute of limitations had run out or there wasnt enough evidence to charge them, it would be unfair
The reasonable interpretation of the phrase would seem to be about the person's _actions_ rather than their state of being caught out. Even just adding "recognized" (or effectively similar), as in "first time recognized offender", would make it more clear that it's describing "this is the first time the state is recognizing them as an offender".
As it is, the term "offense" has to be understood as not actually referring to what the person did, but rather the recognition itself of the state regarding the action. Which is clunky to any casual person who doesn't deal with legal language regularly. We generally understand "offense" as an action of particular quality, rather than the event of observing such action regardless of quantity or spread over time.
We need ruthless prosecutors on every part of this. No plea deals. Public trials.
Considering America still has the death penalty, it annoys me it doesn’t get used for sex offenders on this scale!
So don't protect the identities of the victims?
Uh no
@@Grinnar Jane doe exists for this express purpose
Personally I want a plea deal.
1 Year off her sentence for each person convicted on her testimony who has a net worth over 10 million
I'm not into conspiracy theories but it seems really convenient that one jury member just decided to admit to everyone that he lied during jury selection.
@@Eunacis check to see if their family is okay and not dead too
Honestly, it's probably nothing of the sort, but it certainly does look bad. When I was on jury duty, nobody in the pool was willing to talk about the process we used to get the resulting judgment. I don't know about the other jurors, but having spent nearly a month of my life dealing with the case, I wasn't about to say anything that could be used to overturn things. Both parties were pretty much hated by the whole jury by the end of the trial and I have great confidence that the resulting judgments were fair by way of both parties being hated equally by us. If I had been able to do it legally, I would have taken all the money from both of them and given it to somebody else entirely.
I suspect that kind of thinking happens more than one might expect due to the time that the attorneys spend trying to tar each other within the boundaries set up in the appropirate civil procedures and courtroom rules.
Especially in THIS case. The jurors were asked up front if they were abused now a juror comes out and admits he lied? Why is he even admitting this to the press?
@@Eunacis yes yes yes!
@@blammela if the reasoning is true and he didn't properly read the questions, then it is probably "innocent" in that he didn't think it would be a conflict - although it could be argued that someone that doesn't read court documents throughly might not be suitable. Another possibility is that he didn't think the question applied (perhaps the question could be interpreted several ways? 'Are you a victim of a sexual abuse crime' implies that there was at least an attempt at a conviction, the word act, instead of crime might be clearer) without actually reading the question this is speculation
I’ve been waiting for this video since the moment I heard about the juror’s comments. Thank you for such an erudite (as always) explanation.
Man you put so much work into these videos. You have a great team! Keep it up!
I’m not in the law profession, but I really find his videos interesting and very educating. Well done!
I object to the fact that I can't find a video of you doing a legal evaluation of the TV series from the 1980's known as Night Court.
Wait I requested this! Thank you for covering it!
I have gone in for jury duty a few times (less than a dozen, currently) and have only had to face the Voir Dire process twice. I've only been asked 3 questions by lawyers during my 2 Voir Dire questionings. I guess the fact I come off as boring doesn't put a target on my back for intense questioning.
I could see the likelihood of voir dire actually being used corresponding with how high profile the case is, too
I went to jury duty once and went through vore dire during it, I didn't even realize it didn't always happen. But the case I was being questioned on was kind of intense as it was a domestic abuse case for undocumented immigrants
I HAD VOIR DIRE ONCE, THE PROSECUTOR SAID A POLICEMAN WOULD TESTIFY IN UNIFORM- DID ANY OF US HAVE ISSUES....
I ASKED WHY, IF IT WAS HIS DAY OFF. AND IF IT WAS A WORK DAY: WILL HE BE PAID FOR TESTIFYING AND HAVE HIS SIDEARM?
"DISMISSED!" WAS ALL HE ANSWERED.
It's kind of troubling to imagine that a juror might be excluded from a jury on the grounds that they've been a victim of a crime - especially a depressingly common one. It seems like it would be hugely beneficial for a jury to have this kind of insight - e.g. in this case, where jurors might overestimate the significance of inconsistent memory of that crime because they lack the firsthand experience to know how normal that is.
They would only be excluded if they said they couldn't be impartial. But these jurors basically lied about their history so they were never asked the question about impartiality.
Excluding a potential juror who is the victim of the same crime is not so difficult. The problem is that the juror lied. And you've got to doubt the reasoning faculties of a juror on the case who couldn't work out what was meant by a simple question of himself
@N Fels 100000%
@N Fels - While I agree that that would be a problem, I highly doubt that people who are blind to the possibility of innocence due to their own trauma would willingly stay on a sex crime jury if they didn't have to. Like, there might be the odd exception, but I think most people who've suffered trauma know that they have.
@N Fels - I don't think that's a result of people who suffer from trauma. I think that's just more people who are assholes.
Ohhhh…thank you for explaining the statute of limitations issue. I’ve long wondered about that aspect of this and similar cases.
Video given a thumb up for the Give Well promo as well as the usual high quality, well explained legal perspective on current events.
This man breaks down everything into one tight video. Thank you.
I’ve started to watch your videos and I just love them, keep up the good work man. I would like to see a ”real lawyer reacts” video on the trial of Perry Smith in season two of the popular netflix series Lucifer.
It should be taken into account when someone is extremely wealthy and doesn’t need any money, but STILL performs craven, criminal acts…
They do it because they can. We need to do better so that they don't.
It's quite likely that she was abused herself. Not that that excuses her behavior. Not one bit.
@@TheRatsintheWalls i thinj they meant "carnal"
The two-tier justice system is maintained by impartiality about one’s income; a poor person has to pay the same fines as someone rich enough to easily afford the fine so that it’s no longer a punishment for the rich person.
That’s just one example, and any attempt to reform laws to make punishments proportional to income would be rejected as “class war” or “anti-rich prejudice” by the mostly rich people who write all the laws.
Excellent summation of events. Love your channel.
Thank you for unpacking this!
Didn't even have the bell notification on! The timing was just that good. Gonna enjoy this one for lunch!
I have a couple of thoughts regarding this.
1) Personally, I wonder how much NOT having victims of SA on a jury would skew the opinion of the jury towards Maxwell's side. Does trauma have a massive impact on the way that people think? Absolutely. However, it's also something that is difficult for the average person to understand, unless they've been through it.
A person having been the victim of SA in their background doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot be impartial, and decide the case based on the facts, but it does mean that they have first-hand knowledge of how brains might respond to such trauma. Without a trauma-informed jury and judicial process, there is no real way for any victim of SA to receive justice. I think that the lack of understanding of trauma in the courts may be a contributing factor in why so many victims of SA never decide to come forward with what they've been through, and never decide to seek justice. The system, overall, really favors the perpetrators, on the specific crimes of SA.
2) Just how many people could they reasonably strike from the jury for being a victim of SA? I mean, statistically, it's a very common experience.
Honestly this is an underrated comment. More people need to be thinking about this
You bring up a good point about any case involving SA. There's a lot that goes on that's fairly typical for people to experience that the general public might not be informed on like decisions made by the victim because those close to them tried to lower the seriousness of the situation or gas light them into thinking nothing really happened. Or how people are affected like in the case of some victims just blocking it out, etc.
It would be nice if Legal Eagle can talk about this and if this is necessary for the jury to know or if they're informed. There's a lot of common knowledge that is simply not true like rape mostly occuring in dark alley ways by strangers because the person dressed scantily.
I remember when I was in vore dire and being asked about stuff like this and I answered with explaining my personal experience the follow up was "do you think this will effect your judgement/can you still be impartial" and I was basically like, "I don't really know, maybe but I'd try to be impartial"
But another guy just straight up said he couldn't be impartial because he was racist - like literally, that was his justification
So I think they care much more about how you answer the "can you be impartial" question and that having experience does not necessarily get you striken from a jury, but it could. Like the defense may be more likely to want to strike you, but I think they have a limited number of strikes they can use. If a certain high percentage of the jury selection has personal experience, then it would be literally impossible to strike all of them
That being said it is sort of a "it's possible for a victim of sexual assault to end up on the jury" situation rather than "we will actively seek out someone with this experience to be on the jury"
Similar to how a poc could end up with an all white jury - if there are not that many or even any poc in the initial line up, they're not going to go seek out other jurors to make it less racially biased
And it reeks of slut shaming/ruined woman (even though victims of SA can be any gender) reasoning. Why can't a survivor be equally capable of making objective decisions as literally any other person? When you're discussing something like CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING I'd be more concerned if someone claims to be enough of a sociopath to be entirely removed from their emotions. If any society raises people to not feel rage and disgust for a trafficker and abuser of children, burn it to the ground.
Depending on the statistics you’re using: 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some sort of sexual crime.
Best explanation from all I've seen! ❤
Really like your overall view on the Maxwell case.
Thank you,
I've been the victim of sexual manipulation and assault before. When I was really young. And do you know what argument I would've made in the deliberation? "Nobody's memory is perfect. Especially when the memories are formed at a younger age. And the memories are less accurate over time. And it gets worse when the event in question was traumatic. And it gets even worse the more you recount that memory. Of course the fine details are going to be inconsistent... that's what you should *expect* normally."
Just because I was the victim of some predator when I was in grade school doesn't mean I'm going to throw my objectivity out of the window. I'd attribute most of my misremembering of the details to be because I was a child, actually, so I wouldn't be sharing my personal experience as if it's somehow a special case in memory recall. I guess that means my opinion is that they did the right thing but for the wrong reason.
I think literally everyone knows this, lol.
@@mccalejk2 Apparently not because, as the story goes, the jury was about to discount witness testimony as the fine details were off.
And then, instead of pointing out the thing "literally everyone knows, lol" a couple of jurors went over their personal stories to convince the others that traumatic memories aren't going to be 100% accurate.
I *wish* everyone knew this. Then they would've been able to do the right thing *without* potentially causing a mistrial.
@@PebkioNomare Still, you should only admit something like that under pressure. The defense can easily turn that to mean you're an unreliable source of information and therefore invalidate and downplay your story in the eyes of the jury. It's scummy, but it happens.
Yes, imperfect recollection to a lesser or greater degree is something everyone suffers, even people who sell their ability to memorize things. While it is true that there are ways to enhance your memory, it's never flawless and usually it only works when you are actively attempting to use that ability so that you can apply mnemonic devices to help you.
Perhaps one of the good things to come out of the extremely disheartening legal cases of sexual abuse recently, is the acknowledgement and acceptance by all of us that victims don't need to be shining examples of 'moral purity' combined the expert memory specialists in order to be credible. Memories are imperfect and sex and desire is sometimes a confusing mash of aspects, that doesn't mean people are lying about what happened to them.
I just want to say that you're my favorite content creator on RUclips. This video frustrates me, but it's only due to the facts. Thank you for never sugar-coating the reality of legal matters.
lolz Under city press and good lawgic have way more actual facts, since they were there actually there for most of the trial. very irritating how many statutes and facts he gets wrong. sadly, this is one of his better videos i have seen.
Objection - When they didn't pay attention to the short questionnaire does it not raise doubt they payed attention in the much longer trial.
To be fair it is quite likely they answered the jury questionnaire before they even knew what jury they were going to be on or if they are even going to be on a jury at all - first day of jury duty is basically just being in the DMV waiting to see if the DMV wants you to do stuff for them
Love the givewell plug. Good shit
You should Do a follow up video on this once there is a conclusion about the mistrial
I'm sure he will
I'm glad she was convicted. But it feels like not enough still.
Thats because no media was allowed in the court room, the documents were sealed, so we caught the sex slavers, but not the actual child molesters that maxwell named.
Someone very powerful pulled some strings to cover thier own ass
@@GoldLove21 can you prove this?
Agreed. Also, wish they would’ve televised the trial. A lot of questions remain unanswered and that’s only going to lead to speculation by the general public.
@@GoldLove21 I'm pretty sure they were sealed for a reason and wouldn't be unsealed for a good while. Between protecting the identity of the victims and protecting other ongoing investigations regarding the other "clients", etc. It's probably a good idea at this time.
Way too much has been redacted and covered up.
This was a well put together and impartial video. I watched it to the end. Know that this come from a harsh critic.
Excellent presentation!
I think that was Maxwell's lawyers' strategy to begin with. They knew the case against Maxwell was strong. They were banking on a mistrial.
How could a lawyer have a 'strategy' and 'bank on' something that in many trials doesn't happen?
Yes but the fact remains, with mistrial, the state still has all of the same evidence and case as before
they can recharge her and have a new trial with the same solid case against her.
that’s why the “intended” mistrial theory doesn’t fly to me.
They will be buried the next time just the same.
@@mckenzie.latham91 maybe we will get the names of the abusers
@N Fels "Time she can use to emigrate to Russia, Cyprus, or some other place where they're like "Who cares what you did.”
There is no way she would ever be allowed to leave the jurisdiction or wouldn’t have a bracelet, tracking system and or be retained in prison or house arrest
Again i don’t even thin she will be let out of prison if a mistrial occurs given how much of a flight risk she is and etc.
She was not allowed out on bail up to the first trial, during or after either.
Good couples finish each others sentences
I, too, saw the meme that was posted dozens of times all over Reddit and Twitter immediately after the court proceedings.
Don't have too much to say on the main topic of video itself, but didn't realize you were into EA. That's awesome!
The plane was called the Lolita Express? Like they weren't even trying to hide it.
There was a deal on the table to drop the federal perjury charges if Ghislane's lawyers did not seek a new trial based on jury misconduct.
Source?
@@IkeOkerekeNews military
Source: just trust me bro
I hope these convictions stand and some measure of justice is served.
You think?
Justice? You mean like, from god? Administered by the Easter Bunny? In a prison in Narnia?
Great video, understand much more now
Heya mang, not to say you should cover this on your channel but I feel you would be interested in checking out the Trial of Tim Heidecker for a super realistic display of the court system in a skit. Your seeming excitement for your Gets Lawyered series makes it seem like you would appreciate it.
First time offender? Nah! First time caught.
That is typically the court definition of first time offender
That's what first time offender means. It's the first time you were brought before a judge for a crime. Not the number of times you committed a crime.
@@Thehouseoffail and that's stupid as shit. First time offender should be limited to first counts only. Actual incentive to not crime.
@@TheWrinkledCheese I personally think it should be worded differently. But it's important to know what legal terms actually mean. To be able to defend yourself better.
If a crime is committed to a large enough base, it could be difficult or impossible to find impartial jurors. That is more common when a case is big and has been on the news a lot, but considering the unfortunate prevalence of sexual abuse, it makes me feel sad to think that there's a world where sexual predators can't be fairly tried because enough sexual predators have preyed on their local populace.
Hey LegalEagle!
Like a dog that just heard you pick up the keys, you can see the exact moment the LegEag starts describing the sponsor. His ears perk up, his smile instantly grows and his demeanor becomes excited. Regardless of the words, the transition is obvious and rather amusing.
I'm gonna be honest, I know it's the law, but never being able to have people who have experienced sexual abuse on a jury, like, will that really keep it unbiased? Should we remove all people who don't understand common reactions to trauma bc that in itself would create a bias? But know one's ever done that
That's why the question is asked. It's not an auto-disqualification, and defence doesn't have an unlimited number of challenges. Obviously victims of abuse would be someone the defence doesn't want, but that doesn't mean the can get rid of everyone they don't want.
That's the thing that gets me. There are so many people whose only experience with trauma comes from media that glorifies, stereotypes, or fetishizes it. That's also a major form of bias imho.
By keeping people without those experiences out of the jury pool, you are relying on people whose experiences will not reflect reality. Which is a lot like getting gun safety classes from people who've only ever played the original Doom.
@@ummacnai again tho like people are not questioned about their knowledge of trauma responses which would be relevant info. What's counted as bias here is stacked against one side
I think this is something people fail to realize. A jury of your peers and impartial juries should represent an actual portion of the population. Which includes victims of abuse of any kind- meaning its very likely (but not wrong in any way) that you have someone who's experienced abuse on a jury against someone being tried for abuse.
While lawyers try to shape juries, it's literally impossible to avoid some factors at this point.
Which is actually why my argument is that lawyers should not be able to shape the jury- unless they've already shown clear bias/lied.
That being said, personal bias is **inevitable** in law. The point of law is we don't judge people based on exactly what's written, but **our interpretation** of what's written.
While I understand what you’re saying, it is the prosecution’s job to present expert witnesses on those elements, not the jurors’ job to tell each other about it.
Given that the jurors were sexually abused, they very likely were, to the best of their recollection at the time, being truthful. I've been sexually abused and assaulted and sometimes go years without remembering or thinking about either. They do color my behavior, but not detrimentally, they just make me hypervigilant for the safety of others. It took Epstein and allegations against Gaetz to bring back up a lot of personal trauma from my childhood, and I'm a year and a half from 50 years old... Not just my trauma but the kind I was witness to directly and indirectly against the sorts of young women and girls targeted by these sorts of operations (allegedly in some cases).
The segue game was a little off this time but, Give Well is a good advertiser to have.
Another good video, sir. Thanks.
Ya know what legaleagle? Id love to see u play that whose line game of questions only. I bet a good lawyer would rock at that game!! Lol
I'm praying she doesn't need a retrial. Re-trying her would cause a whole lot more pain to the victims who have already endured so much. I don't know a single woman who hasn't suffered some form of sexual abuse. I know several men and one enby person who has too. Both victims and predators know no gender.
What’s an enby?
@@iihastega5972 enby is shorthand for nonbinary.
@@mandipandi303 🙄
Pain to the victims? They are enjoying their millions as we speak. And at least one “victim” revisited the Epstein island for many years after her “harrowing experience “. All with her parents best wishes of course.
@@Etherglide This is genuinely some of the weakest and ill timed rage baits. You should definitely consider finding a hobby and not be a terrible human being.
I was just watching the video and making coffee and my brother asked me if I was watching the office😂
Lawyer Jim
Hey I have a similar case and Cook county Illinois. In Cook county jurors are required to answer questionnaire where they say if they've ever been arrested or convicted of a crime. During this case my client recognized four jurors and his lawyer said nothing. Then of course they tried to hide the juror selection forms but somehow my client got a hold of them anyway and found out that four of the jurors answered no to the question but it turns out that they had been arrested for violent crimes but they had answered no. Three of them had a domestic violence arrest one had a domestic violence conviction and then the other one threatened some poor utility guy and told him that he turned off his electricity he would beat the crap out of them and that is using polite words. When this was brought to the attention of the judge after the trial the only thing she did was say how did you get that information and then numerous motions were filed, in particular one of the jurors said he didn't lie repeatedly because he was never convicted so how would an arrest matter. The case is currently up on appeal but just to let you know and Cook county they don't care if jurors lie on their juror selection forms and they don't even care if it's a big lie
Can we talk about how chaotic the intro to this video was?Like… how is any of this possible? Even in such a well organized format… the information is still insane.
I'm not gonna lie. I'd find it disguisting if they decided victims of sexual abuse can't be included in a jury for sexual abuse allegations. How's every adage go? "No man knows a rapist yet every woman has a story." Sexual abuse is painfully common place and ruling out all abuse victims like that would not be a jury of ones peers, nor are victims of sexual abuse inherently traumatised by their experiences and aren't broken. They are capable of inparcality
Nobody was a "victim" here. She didn't Force anyone to do anything.
Cheers. Ugh.
And also will be hard to find women who has not been assaulted, bc is so rampant. Having a jury that has no experience with it is also a bias in a society where that happens so much.
Why is everyone keep getting it wrong?
Legal eagle literally said it in the video, it’s not because they’re a victim, it’s because they lie when being asked the first time
@@mariomario1462 It is my experience that dudes who defend rapi*ts have usually done some shady, gross stuff themselves.
I was abused by my parents as a child (mental and physical abuse) and I was called to be a on a jury and disclosed that I had been abused, but told the Judge and lawyers that even though I was abused I would still want my parents to have a fair and impartial trial.
I was asked if I could be impartial and I was. I served on that case for almost 2 weeks, and by the evidence I don't think the abuse happened as badly as the charges stated, but we found them guilty of a misdemeanor as there was a crime done but we didn't think they did the crimes for the reason presented and because a crime was done there should have been a punishment.
1:09 KUDOS for being able to say that with out immediately bursting into tears laughing...
you should do the disposition episode of the office!
Hey Legal Eagle why is the Nebula version shorter than the RUclips version? Maybe I'll see you in court.
Does it not have the add at the end?
I think we should update legislation to make going after rich people for more than money crimes easier. They can money away everything but math, and that seems wrong.
Depends how you go about it. Mandating that the defense is guaranteed a similar amount of funding to the prosecution, and that the defendant is not allowed anything more, would greatly increase the fairness of trials. I'd also ban mock juries for use by consultants trying to figure out which jurors to get tossed from consideration during selection.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade I like that!
I’ve been watching the TV Get’s Lawyered episodes and they’re so amazing! I’d love to see episodes on Scandal and Bull, too (:
Thank you so much for what you teach me, I am forever humble, Arigato Senpai,
So if I were called to jury duty and I was asked if I had ever been abused, I'd have to answer honestly in open court? I couldn't decline to answer? Yikes.
Regarding that juror, would it matter if they interpreted it as "were you the victim of a sexual act for which the perpetrator was found guilty of a crime?" They may have been the victim but not of a crime, either due to a not guilty verdict or due to no charges made at all.
Being a victim of a crime doesn't require the criminal to be convicted.
@@TitaniumDragon did the juror know that? I haven't actually read the transcript or questionnaire so that's why I phrased it as generally as possible. I don't know the specific question the juror answered and how they specifically answered it.
@@marshallc6215 it would be difficult for at least one juror to believe that; apparently one juror chose to lead the jury in its deliberations from that experience of abuse. And if they can't work out what the questions mean, how could they deliberate they have the ability to deliberate the case?
@@christop997 because their job wasn't to answer the question the attorneys meant to ask during voir dire. It was to answer the questions they were asked. That's why I'm curious as to what questions they were asked.
Givewell is amazing. :) Thanks for promoting them.
The list has been released!
It's really sad when the technicalities of the law protect criminals.
Yeah, like Trump at least twice
The technicalities are what protects our rights. Considering all of the high-profile names involved, I seriously doubt this was an accident.
They are there to protect everyone.
And having a juror influence the jury by playing at expert witness is much more than a technicality.
@@handpaper6871 Yeah, so much more than rape. I totally hope this serial rapist gets to go home and live in comfort because a juror decided to do something themselves. That doesn't mean a damn thing about justice. It's a tool, and anyone obfuscating the truth is just pathetic.
They're not technicalities; they're called civil rights. I certainly wouldn't want to sacrifice any of my civil rights just to make life easier for prosecutors.
Rich and powerful people seem to engage in such shady practises with the law lagging behind. Princess are not above law.
I motion that you make a legal realism review for the court scene in "First Sunday."
That pilots log really helped the case
If the juror's failed to disclose their own sexual abuse history, then Maxwell's Due Process rights were likely violated. I think that you missed an opportunity to speak about how the Feds are suggesting they won't charge her for the perjury if a re-trial isn't done.
How is it appropriate for the Government to say "We won't charge you for a second crime, if you dismiss the fact your rights were violated in the first trial?"
I feel bad for this man. I've seen a lot of his videos and you can tell when he's having fun or at least likes the topic he's covering, But the entire time this video was playing you could tell he absolutely hated the fact he is covering this like part of me feels he had to stop recording occasionally to dry heave over how disgusted he is by these people.
I think you just saw his professional demeanour. This isn't one you want people accusing you of taking lightly. If he's done criminal work at all, he's probably developed a thick skin.
I know I wanted to dry heave... 🤢
Can you do a video breaking down the sentences for the Aubrey case?
Damn, Devin. The beginning of this is brutal, dunno how much more I can hear about this bad man but I'll sit it through just for you.
"Have you ever been a victim of sexual assault?"
"I reported it to the police, and they declined to investigate, claiming there was no evidence of a crime, so legally, there was no sexual assault committed, so I couldn't be a victim."
The legal system can't claim a person was not a victim then later claim they were. That confusion is why the jurors "tainted" by an incorrect answer answered correctly. They were found by "the system" to not be victims, so they can truthfully answer that despite being raped as a child, they were never a "victim" of a the crime "sexual assault", as no such crime was investigated or prosecuted.
The system needs to stop re-victimizing victims.
This is exactly why I have been exempt from all jury duty. I have COMPLEX PTSD which I explained everytime my name came up for jury duty. After calling to speak with my Dr, the local procecutors had him write a formal exemption letter that I had to take to the courthouse, have notarized & put in my file.
Just curious, but what's the significance of the word 'complex'? Is that a diagnostical term, or do you simply mean that it's, well, very complicated?
And, if I may ask, how does the PTSD make you unable to perform jury duty? Again, I'm just curious, but I couldn't help but think that if it's because the nature of your trauma perhaps would be a 'trigger factor' for you in *some* cases, then it wouldn't necessarily have to be in others? Again, that's assuming the reason isn't something particular to PTSD that I'm ignorant of.
Could you do a video reviewing the Robert durst trial?
Best Legal Channel
Thank god for that pilot, he had his suspicions and kept everything documented.
Pilots are required to maintain meticulous flight logs for both the airplane and their personal flight time. The ordinary paperwork became the smoking gun....
@@gateway1600 oh I wasn't aware of that. Even for private pilots?
I thought filing flight plans were optional for private pilots
He knew Epstein kept records for blackmail and probably kept better records for the same reason. Thank God whatever the reason was, he kept these records.
@@bengunderson712 Flight plans are not the same as aircraft flight records and pilot flight hours. Every minute of a plane's operation must be documented to maintain FAA airworthiness certification, insurance and resale value of the aircraft. Pilots have to track their flying hours by type aircraft, their training hours and status as pilot in command or co-pilot.
Excellent breakdown. I don't think the issues with the juror will warrant a re-trial. But of course, Judge Nathan may think otherwise.
Legaleagle said that Epstein killed himself more than once in this video. That is definitely not excellent.
You said the judges questioned the jurors "in the interest of justice" and I've heard the term many times when arguing the legality of things. But "in the interest of justice" clearly is rarely actually applied.
Could you do a video on the legal realism of the the Lincoln lawyer
I can't believe that victims of sexual violence would be deemed unfit to be jury. Most of us are not even believed by the police or the prosecutors when we complaint. The whole system is create to protect rapists and other sex offenders and silence all victims (if not in intent, at least in results).
Why would a sexual assault victim is usually deemed partial and required further questioning by the judge, but a person who knows nothing about nothing and believe that if a victim can't remember any tiny inconsequential detail about the room where they were assaulted 20 years ago it means they lie, would be deemed impartial by default? That's beyond me.
I imagine it extends to any other crimes committed against a person; if I lost my house to arson, lawyers would probably want to know that before I sat on a jury for an arson case.
The law is always very specific in what they want jurors to consider (for better or worse). Did this person commit this crime on this day? It’s within human nature to be biased against those who we see as similar to the ones that have wronged us. Not saying people cannot be impartial, but as much as possible, they want to avoid anyone who might assume the defendant is guilty and seek to punish them regardless of the evidence.
You bring up a good point about how someone with that experience does have advanced understanding of its nuances. I guess the justice system just assumes it’s on the prosecutor to address potential questions about the reliability of testimony, such as calling an expert witness to explain why traumatic experiences might not be recalled clearly.
I can see though how it feels like a double standard; don’t get believed when it happens to you but they’ll use it to bounce you from a jury :(
Because they're not trying to make an impartial jury, they're trying to make a jury that's favorable to Maxwell. They know full well that everyone who knows anything about sexual violence will find Maxwell guilty so they're doing what they can to minimize the likelihood of that outcome. The rapists implicated in their child trafficking ring don't want to face punishment so they won't. Not if Epstein's anything to go by.
What is the purpose of the statute of limitations? All it seemingly does it say: if you got away with it for so many years you no longer get punished (I am severely uneducated on this topic, obviously)
Probably because people's memories fade and so first-hand accounts could be inaccurate and lead to a bad verdict? Idk but that's my guess
Right to a fair trial. Evidence goes bad over time, and memories in particular are terrible. The longer the distance between the offense and the trial is, the harder it is to find evidence like alibis (do YOU remember what you were doing on some random day ten years ago?) and the more likely confabulation is, etc.
You are so good at this (and I'm a lawyer, so harder to fool if you'd tried), but why no coverage at all of the fascinating Theranos case? How about a show on the likely sentence or how it will be approached, and what happens when the judge disregards guidelines?