Ghislaine Maxwell jurors who spoke to media about their experience with sexual abuse could be prosecuted if they lied under oath

• Two jurors told media they discussed their experience as survivors of sexual abuse while deliberating Ghislaine Maxwell's fate.
• Both prosecutors and defense attorneys have raised concerns, and Maxwell's lawyers want a new trial.

Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction was thrown into doubt on Wednesday, when her attorneys pushed for a new trial due to a juror's comments about his experience with sexual abuse and how it affected the jury's deliberations.

The jury ultimately convicted Maxwell on five out of six sex-trafficking and conspiracy counts. One of those jurors told multiple media outlets that sharing his sexual abuse experience with fellow jurors had helped persuade them to convict.

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys raised concerns about this revelation, and US District Judge Alison Nathan has agreed to hold hearings to determine next steps. Experts told Insider's Kelsey Vlamis that it's likely Maxwell's conviction could be tossed out as a result of the juror's disclosure.

It's possible that juror could also face legal consequences — including perjury charges — if Nathan determines he was untruthful during voir dire, the pre-trial procedure where prosecutors and defense attorneys examine each prospective juror to see if they're suitable to serve.

Jury expert Jill Huntley Taylor, of Taylor Trial Consulting, told Insider that jurors are put under oath during voir dire, and also sign their questionnaires to attest that all of their answers are true.

She said defense attorneys typically use voir dire to try to weed out biased jurors. But stealth jurors, who "hide experiences or biases with the intent of getting on the jury," often go undetected, Huntley Taylor said, unless they speak to the press afterward.

The juror, who is identified in court documents as Juror #50, told Reuters that he "flew through" a pre-trial questionnaire and said he didn't recall being asked about his personal experience with sexual abuse before he was seated on the jury. The juror said he would have answered such a question honestly.

Court records show that the questionnaire asked all prospective Maxwell jurors, "Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse or sexual assault?"

During voir dire, prosecutors and defense attorneys typically interrogate prospective jurors who answer "yes" to such questions. But CNN reported Thursday that transcripts showed Juror #50 was not questioned about his experiences with sexual abuse.

It's not immediately disqualifying for a juror to have previous experience with sexual abuse, Huntley Taylor said. However, she said that is something defense attorneys would have wanted to know "so that they can ask further questions to determine if that prior experience creates a bias against their client."

A second juror later told The New York Times on condition of anonymity that they, too, discussed their experience with sexual abuse during deliberations. This second juror also said that sharing their story seemed to help convince the other jurors to believe Maxwell's victims.

Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys have formally addressed the second juror's comments.

These two jurors' exact answers on the questionnaire remain unknown, and neither has been accused of lying or incorrectly filling out their forms. Juror #50 retained an attorney on Wednesday, who did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Valerie Hans, a law professor at Cornell University who has studied juries, told Insider there could be an innocent explanation for why a juror would incorrectly answer the questionnaire.

"If the juror did respond negatively to that question or if he failed to answer that question, it's possible he didn't notice it, or it's possible that he did not remember the details and recognize it as sexual abuse until sitting as a juror in this trial," Hans said.

If one or both Maxwell jurors did lie on the questionnaire, Huntley Taylor said they could face prosecution. Prosecutors with the Southern District of New York did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

It's quite rare, but not unprecedented, to charge a juror with perjury, according to Huntley Taylor.

California prosecutors charged a juror with felony perjury in 1991, after he failed to disclose his criminal record before sitting on the jury of a murder trial. The Los Angeles Times reported that the court discovered the juror's falsehood when he asked to be excused three days into the trial so he could attend a court hearing of his own.