In a decisive ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Ghislaine Maxwell’s request to revisit its previous decision, which upheld her conviction for facilitating the sexual abuse of teenage girls by the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. On Monday, the Manhattan-based court rejected Maxwell’s request for an en banc review, where all active judges of the court would reconsider the case.
This ruling solidifies the conviction handed down in December 2021, when Maxwell, 62, was found guilty on five charges related to recruiting and grooming minors for Epstein’s abuse between 1994 and 2004. The decision follows a previous ruling in September 2023, where a three-judge panel rejected Maxwell’s appeal on several grounds, including challenges to her trial and conviction.
Maxwell’s legal team, led by attorney Arthur Aidala, expressed disappointment with the decision but indicated that they remain “cautiously optimistic” that the U.S. Supreme Court may take up her case. However, the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear appeals, making the possibility of a further legal challenge uncertain. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence at a federal correctional facility in Tallahassee, Florida, and is slated for release in 2037, assuming she serves the full sentence.
Maxwell’s conviction, which has been widely discussed in the media due to its connection to the high-profile Epstein case, was upheld by the appeals court in part due to the trial judge’s findings that Maxwell played a critical and “pivotal” role in facilitating Epstein’s abuse. The court also rejected Maxwell’s argument that she should be shielded from prosecution based on Epstein’s controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement with federal authorities in Florida.
Maxwell’s attorneys argued that this agreement, which allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state prostitution charges in 2008, should have protected Maxwell from prosecution in New York. However, the court found that the agreement did not extend to Maxwell and that her role in the abuse was independent of Epstein’s plea deal.
In their request for an en banc review, Maxwell’s lawyers also sought to challenge a 1985 ruling that held plea agreements are only binding in the specific district where they are made, unless broader restrictions were expressly intended. They claimed that this ruling conflicted with decisions from other federal appeals courts and was at odds with two key Supreme Court rulings regarding plea and immunity agreements.
The latest legal setback for Maxwell raises important questions about the scope of plea agreements and immunity in the criminal justice system, especially as it pertains to high-profile cases involving powerful figures.
Read more: