Maxwell’s lawyers filed their motion 30 minutes before deadline on Wednesday night “under seal”, meaning it is shielded from the public. This may be because the motion refers not just to Scotty David, but to a second juror who has not been publicly identified.

An unnamed juror told The New York Times that they also shared their experience being sexually abused as a child during deliberations, which they said “appeared to help shape the jury’s discussions.”

“Given the fact that much of what the juror said has already been made public, it seems a bit unusual,” David Weinstein, a defence attorney and former federal prosecutor, told The Telegraph. “However, if they are making reference to other jurors’ information that is known to the defence and prosecution, but not to the general public, then that might be the basis for filing their motion under seal.”

The disgraced British socialite faces an uphill struggle. Her team must show both that the juror lied and that his “preconceived opinion may have improperly swayed the jury” to get a retrial. However, they cannot ask about what was discussed during jury deliberations, creating a Catch 22 situation.

Even though jurors may speak to the news media or write about their experiences, the Supreme Court has held that any jurors’ statements or testimony about the inner workings of deliberations cannot be used by lawyers challenging a verdict, or by a judge deciding whether to overturn it.

Maxwell could seek to rely on a precedent set by a similar case, heard in Nashville in 2015.