Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 5) (9/29/26)

Transcript

Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 5) (9/29/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off with Judge Engelmeyer and his order
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: denying Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to get her conviction overturned. 3.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Claim 3. Constructive Amendment of the S2 Indictment Maxwell's petition
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: next briefly claims that Count 3 and 4 of the
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: S2 Indictment were constructively amended in violation of the Fifth
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: Amendment's Grand Jury Clause. with respect to the victim referred
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: to as Jane. That claim reiterates an argument which Judge
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: Nathan and the Second Circuit rejected, and Maxwell's petition does
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: not cite any new information in support of it. Relevant
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: Background Count three of the S-2 indictment charged Maxwell with
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: conspiring with Epstein to transport minors with the intent to
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of U.S. Code 18,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: Section 371, S-2 Indictment 16-19. Count 4 charged Maxwell under U.S.
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: Code 18 Section 2423A and 2 with the substantive offense
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: sex acts with Epstein in violation of New York Penal
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Law Section 130.55. At trial, the government presented substantial evidence
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: that Maxwell had transported Jane to New York and aided
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: and abetted Epstein in doing so. with the intent that
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: Jane engage in sex acts with Epstein at his Manhattan townhouse. Jane,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: for example, testified that at age 14, she began traveling
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: with Maxwell and Epstein to New York, usually on Epstein's
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: private jet. Between ages 14 and 16, she traveled with
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: him approximately 10 times, including from Palm Beach to New
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: York and also Santa Fe, New Mexico. Jane also testified
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: that she had repeatedly been sexually abused by Epstein in
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: the massage room of his Manhattan townhouse, including with Maxwell present.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: She also testified that she traveled with Epstein and Maxwell
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: to Epstein's New Mexico ranch at approximately age 15 or 16,
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: where she was abused by Epstein. Jane testified that Maxwell
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: helped arrange for her travel from her home in Palm
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: Beach to join Maxwell and Epstein. At the conclusion of
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: the trial, Judge Nathan instructed the jury that count four
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: alleged that Maxwell had knowingly transported Jane with the intent
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: that Jane and engage in sexual activity for which any
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: of New York law. Judge Nathan charged the jury on
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: one predicate, New York offense, New York Penal Law Section 130.55,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: thus keying Count 4 to travel to New York. As
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: to Count 3, Judge Nathan referred back to her instructions
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: on Count 4. She also stated that with respect to
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: the overt acts under Count 3, the indictment alleged that,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: as to Jane... Between approximately 94 and 97, when Jane
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: was under the age of 17, Maxwell participated in multiple
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: group sexual encounters with Epstein and Jane in New York
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: and Florida, and that in approximately 1996, Jane had been
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: enticed to travel from Florida to New York for sexual
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: abuse at Epstein's New York home, in violation of New
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: York Penal Law Section 130.55. In summation, government counsel argued
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: in support of conviction on count four that the evidence
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: showed that Maxwell had knowingly transported Jane to New York,
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: intending for Jane to engage in sexual activity for which
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: any person can be charged with a criminal offense under
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: New York law. Government counsel argued when Epstein flew Jane
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: to New York and Maxwell aided and abetted him, that's
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: enough to convict Maxwell on count four. And as to
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: venue for count four, counsel stated, You heard about Jane's
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: trips to Manhattan, which is in the Southern District of
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: New York. That's more than enough for venue. During deliberations,
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: the jury sent the following note. Under count four, the
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: not the flight to New Mexico, where if the intent
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: be found guilty under the second element? Terming the note
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: difficult to parse factually and legally, Judge Nathan referred the
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: jury back to her instructions. regarding the second element of
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: count four. She also noted that Maxwell's counsel had not
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: sought to exclude Jane's testimony regarding her travel to and from,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: or her abuse in, New Mexico, or limiting instruction with
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: respect to that testimony. Maxwell's counsel sought reconsideration as to
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: that response, suggesting a possible constructive amendment or a prejudicial variance.
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: Judge Nathan denied that request. After the jury's verdict, Maxwell
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: moved to vacate her conviction under Counts 1, 3, and 4,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: pursuant to Rule 33. She argued that the jury might
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: have convicted her of intending for Jane to engage in
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: illegal sex acts in New Mexico rather than New York,
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: which would present a constructive amendment to the S-2 indictment,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: or alternatively, a prejudicial variance from it. Judge Nathan denied
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: the motion. She noted inter alia that the majority of
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: Jane's testimony discussing travel had pertained to trips to New
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: York and her sexual abuse there, and that Jane had
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: testified about specific details of Epstein's Manhattan townhouse and the
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: sexual acts that occurred in it. And she noted that
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: Jane had testified that Maxwell had assisted in making such
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: travel arrangements, and that corroborating evidence, concluding flight records to
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: New York and photos of Epstein's New York residence, matching
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: Jane's description. Maxwell appealed, claiming that Jane's testimony concerning the
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse she experienced in New Mexico, had given the
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: jury a factual basis to convict her other than on
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: the theory alleged in the S2 indictment. The Second Circuit,
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: in affirming Maxwell's convictions, rejected that argument. It held that
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Judge Nathan's response to the jury's note had not resulted
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: in a constructive amendment of or a prejudicial variance from
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: the indictment's allegations. As to the constructive amendment, the Circuit
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: agreed with Judge Nathan that the jury instructions, the evidence
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: presented at trial, and the government summation captured the core
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: of criminality. Although the jury note was ambiguous in one sense,
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: it was clear that it referred to the second element
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: of count four of the indictment. And Judge Nathan thus
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: had correctly directed the jury that the instruction, which in
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: turn accurately instructed the court count four, had been predicated
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: on finding a violation of New York law. The circuit
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: reasoned that the jury had convicted Maxwell of conduct that
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: was subject of the grand jury's indictment. The circuit also
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: rejected Maxwell's claim of a prejudicial variance. For reasons similar
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: to those underlying its rejection of the constructive amendment claim,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: the circuit held that the trial evidence did not prove
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: facts materially different from the allegations in the indictment. The
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: evidence had shown that Maxwell transported Jane to New York
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: for sexual abuse and conspired to do the same. That
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: evidence was also admitted reflecting sexual abuse of Jane in
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: New Mexico was of no moment. Nor could Maxwell demonstrate
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: any substantial prejudice because she received, over three weeks before trial,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: notes of an interview with Jane recording the abuse suffered
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: in New Mexico. Assessment. Maxwell's claim here is identical to
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: that which Judge Nathan and the Second Circuit rejected. Maxwell
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: does not offer any basis on which to disturb those rulings.
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: This claim is foreclosed by the Mandate Rule and meritless
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: for the reasons stated by Judge Nathan and the Circuit. b.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Claims procedurally defaulted by Maxwell's failure to raise them on
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: direct appeal. Maxwell's petition contains six additional claims that she
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: could have raised on direct appeal but did not. It
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: alleges that 1. Victim's lawyers improperly acted as de facto prosecutors. 2.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: She was selectively prosecuted. 3. Inaccurate financial evidence presented at
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: trial falsely created the impression that she had profited from
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: her conspiracy with Epstein. 4. The 25-year gap between the
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: conduct underlying her crimes and her indictment gave rise to
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: a violation of due process. Five, Judge Nathan erred in
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: imposing a slightly above guideline sentence. And six, Maxwell and
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: Epstein's black contact book should have been excluded at trial.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: These claims are procedurally barred because Maxwell did not raise
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: them in her direct appeal. And Maxwell does not show
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: cause for her failure to do so or a possibility,
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: much less a reasonable probability, that these claims had they
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: been brought, would have yielded different outcomes. On the contrary,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: these claims are blatantly meritless. 1. Claim 4. Impermissible conduct
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: by victims' lawyers. Maxwell claims that the government inappropriately delegated
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: investigative and prosecutorial functions to attorneys for victims, whose civil
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: claims gave them financial interest in her conviction. She claims
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: that new reporting shows that these lawyers manipulated journalists to
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: bring about the USAO's SDNY investigation. She argues that because
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: these attorneys ostensibly acted as de facto prosecutors, their knowledge
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: should be imputed to the prosecution, such that the government
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: violated Brady to the extent that it did not disclose
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: the information they possessed. Relevant Background On June 25, 2021,
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: in denying a motion by Maxwell to suppress evidence, Judge
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Nathan addressed the circumstances under which the USAO SDNY, opened
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: the investigation that led to this prosecution. She found as follows.
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: In late 2015, Virginia Roberts, a victim of Maxwell and Epstein's,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: who did not testify at trial, sued Maxwell for defamation,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: alleging that Maxwell had defamed her by accusing her of
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: lying about Maxwell and Epstein's sexual abuse of her. The
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: boy Schiller Flexner, law firm represented Roberts. In February 2016,
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: at BSF's request, three lawyers from the firm met with
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: an SDNY assistant U.S. attorney to provide information concerning potential
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: criminal conduct. The AUSA's notes reflect that the meeting primarily
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: focused on Epstein, but also identified Maxwell as Epstein's head
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: recruiter of underage girls. The BSF attorney sent multiple follow-ups
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: to the AUSA in the weeks after the meeting. The
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: USAOSDNY did not open a criminal investigation at that time.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: Several years later, on November 30, 2018, USAOSDNY opened an
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: investigation into Epstein prompted by a series of of Miami
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: Herald articles about Epstein and the 2007 NPA he had
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: entered into with USAO SDFL. That day, the AUSA who
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: had attended the February 2016 meeting with the BSF attorneys
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: forwarded to her colleagues assigned to the new investigation the
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: emails she had earlier received from those BSF attorneys. There's
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: no indication that the AUSA was involved in the decision
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: to open the 2018 investigation into Epstein. About two months later,
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: the government served a grand jury subpoena on BSF, seeking
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: to obtain documents bearing on its investigation into Epstein. After
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: BSF informed the government that many such documents fell under
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: protective order entered in Roberts' civil case, the government applied
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: ex parte in that case to modify the order to
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: allow the production of documents responsive to the subpoena. The
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: request was granted, and BSF produced its records from the
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: civil litigation to the government. These included transcripts of Maxwell's
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: two depositions in that case, in which perjury counts in
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: the S2 indictment later were based. Alright folks, we're going
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right there, and in the next episode
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: dealing with the topic we're going to pick up where
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: we left off. All the information that goes with this
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: episode can be found in the description box.