Ghislaine Maxwell’s Sex Trafficking Convictions Upheld on Appeal

Ghislaine Maxwell, found guilty in 2021 of grooming and trafficking minors allegedly abused by her former boyfriend and employer, Jeffrey Epstein, lost an appeal to undo the convictions at the Second Circuit on Tuesday.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit also rejected Maxwell’s challenge to her 20-year prison sentence.

Among other things, Maxwell claimed the charges against her were barred by an extremely controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. But the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York isn’t bound by the agreement, Judge José A. Cabranes said.

The Second Circuit has long held that a plea agreement binds only the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered, unless the agreement affirmatively contemplates a broader restriction, Cabranes said.

There’s nothing in the agreement suggesting the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Rather, where there NPA isn’t silent, it’s expressly limited to the Southern District of Florida, Cabranes said.

Under the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution. In exchange, the government said it wouldn’t bring any criminal charges “against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.” Although the agreement contemplated an 18-month sentence, he served a little less than 13 months with extensive work release.

The appeals court also rejected claims that certain charges were time-barred. The offenses against children statute was amended in 2003 to state that no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse for a minor child “shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child.”

The amendment applies to offenses like those here, involving the sexual abuse of minors, and makes clear that Congress meant to extend the time to bring charges for pre-enactment conduct—not just conduct that post-dated the change, the court said.

A previous version of the law said that a statute of limitations wouldn’t bar prosecution before the child reaches 25.

Impartial Jury

Maxwell also claimed that a juror’s failure to accurately respond to questions about his history of sexual abuse deprived her of a fair trial.

After the verdict was returned, Juror 50 said in media interviews that he was the survivor of child sexual abuse. He had, however, answered in the negative when asked related questions on the jury questionnaire.

At a post-trial hearing, the juror testified, under grant of immunity, that his answers on the questionnaire weren’t accurate but that his answers were an inadvertent mistake. The juror claimed that his experiences didn’t affect his ability to be fair and impartial. The district court found the testimony credible and concluded that he wouldn’t have been struck for cause had he provided accurate responses.

Maxwell hadn’t challenged the inclusion of other jurors who disclosed past experience with sexual abuse, assault, or harassment, the Second Circuit said. That provides enough of a reason to conclude the district court didn’t abuse its discretion when it denied her a new trial, Cabranes said.

The appellate court also rejected claims that the judge’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance from the indictment. The jury instructions, the evidence, and the government’s closing “captured the core of the criminality” charged in the indictment, Cabranes said.

The jury asked about count four, which charged transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. The court’s response accurately instructed the jurors that the count was predicated on finding a violation of New York law, Cabranes said.

Judges Richard C. Wesley and Raymond J. Lohier Jr. joined the decision.

Maxwell is represented by Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins PC.

The case is United States v. Maxwell, 2d Cir., No. 22-01426, 9/17/24.