The United States responded to Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal by arguing that her conviction should be affirmed across the board and that none of the issues she raised justified a new trial or dismissal of the indictment. Prosecutors rejected Maxwell’s claim that Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007 non-prosecution agreement protected her from prosecution in New York, arguing that the agreement was made by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Florida and did not bind federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. They also disputed Maxwell’s argument that she was entitled to enforce the agreement as an intended third-party beneficiary, maintaining that the NPA did not give her a nationwide immunity shield. On the jury issue, the government argued that Juror 50’s failure to disclose his childhood sexual abuse did not warrant a new trial because the district judge had held a hearing, assessed the juror’s credibility and found that the omission was not intentional and did not establish actual bias.
The government also defended Maxwell’s sentence and the leadership enhancement imposed by the trial court, arguing that the evidence supported the conclusion that she exercised authority over others involved in Epstein’s operation. Prosecutors pointed to testimony and trial evidence showing that Maxwell helped recruit, groom and normalize sexualized behavior around young women and girls, and that she worked with staff and associates in ways that supported Epstein’s abuse. More broadly, the United States portrayed Maxwell’s appeal as an attempt to relitigate issues the jury and district court had already resolved, while emphasizing that the trial produced substantial evidence of her knowing participation in Epstein’s scheme. The government therefore asked the Second Circuit to leave both the conviction and sentence intact.
Podden och tillhörande omslagsbild på den här sidan tillhör
Bobby Capucci. Innehållet i podden är skapat av Bobby Capucci och inte av,
eller tillsammans med, Poddtoppen.
