Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers have demanded a new sex-trafficking trial after a juror said he had helped convict the British socialite by telling fellow jury members about his experience of sexual abuse.

Maxwell’s attorneys told New York judge Alison Nathan that the comments by Scotty David, identified by his first and middle names, “presents incontrovertible grounds for a new trial”.

Prosecutors have written to Judge Nathan requesting an inquiry into whether “Scotty” had disclosed that he was a sexual abuse victim during jury selection.

At issue will be what the juror said on the questionnaire he was required to fill out during the lengthy selection process. Question 48 of 51 on the questionnaire was: “Have you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault?” followed by: “If  yes, do you believe that this would affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially as a juror in this case?”

Anyone who answered yes was subject to further questioning to try to determine whether they could be an impartial juror. Scotty was not questioned by the judge on any experience of abuse, The Telegraph understands, after sitting in on what is known as the voir dire.

In various media interviews Scotty said he “flew through” the questionnaire and could not remember being asked about any personal experiences of abuse.

He told the MailOnline: “They don’t ask your sexual abuse history. They didn’t ask it in the questionnaire,” and told Reuters he “flew through it” but he would have answered “honestly”.

His completed questionnaire is sealed from the public, so it is currently not known how he answered.

If he did not answer honestly then Judge Nathan will need to decide whether that failure substantially prejudiced the case, legal experts say.

“It’s not an insignificant issue. It’s going to be given serious treatment by the judge,” said former prosecutor Bennett Gershman.

The obscure case that could guide Judge Nathan

It could all come down to an obscure New York criminal case cited by the prosecution in its filing to the court on Wednesday.

In a 1993 case – the US vs Edward Langford – a juror lied about previous convictions relating to prostitution.

Langford, a chemist-turned-drug dealer, was accused of unlawfully dispensing prescriptions for a variety of controlled substances in Buffalo, New York.

After the jury returned its guilty verdict, Langford moved for a new trial on the grounds that juror Vanessa James had concealed during the jury selection process that she had a criminal record.

In the voir dire, the court had asked prospective jurors whether they or any close friends had “ever been arrested or charged with any offence, federal [or] state”.

One potential juror stated that he had previously been arrested for possession of marijuana; another stated that her brother had been arrested in a foreign country for a drug offence. Ms James made no disclosure in response to the court’s question.

She later testified that she had not disclosed the prostitution arrests or convictions because the disclosures would have caused her substantial embarrassment.

The court ordered an inquiry into the juror, which is what prosecutors in the Maxwell case are pushing for, but ultimately ruled that “where a juror’s intentionally false statements at voir dire were caused by embarrassment, and there was no evidence that she gave false answers because of any desire to sit on the jury, it was proper for district court to deny defendant’s motion for new trial”.

It decided that in order to succeed in his motion, Langford was required to prove (one) that Ms James failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire; and (two) that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The court found that the second element was unproven.