Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 7) (9/29/26)
Transcript
- 0:00Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
- 0:03Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to get right
- 0:06Speaker 1: back to Judge Engelmeyer's order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to
- 0:11Speaker 1: get a new trial. 4. Claim 7. Delayed prosecution. Maxwell
- 0:17Speaker 1: next claims that the indictment was untimely in that it
- 0:20Speaker 1: charged her for the first time in 2020 for offense
- 0:24Speaker 1: conduct that ended in 2004. She argues that this gap
- 0:28Speaker 1: in time denied her due process and prejudiced her because
- 0:32Speaker 1: evidence had become unavailable during the period. Maxwell's counsel made
- 0:36Speaker 1: this argument in the district court no fewer than three times,
- 0:40Speaker 1: twice before trial in her motions to dismiss both the
- 0:44Speaker 1: S-1 and S-2 indictment, and after trial in her motion
- 0:47Speaker 1: to vacate the conviction. Each time, Judge Nathan rejected the argument.
- 0:53Speaker 1: Maxwell chose not to appeal those rulings. Maxwell again does
- 0:57Speaker 1: not point to any cause for that default. And in
- 1:00Speaker 1: addition to being procedurally barred, this claim, as Judge Nathan
- 1:04Speaker 1: repeatedly found, is meritless. Relevant Background On February 4, 2021,
- 1:10Speaker 1: Maxwell's counsel moved to dismiss S-1 indictment on the grounds
- 1:15Speaker 1: of pre-indictment delay. The motion argued that between her crimes
- 1:18Speaker 1: and the indictment, four witnesses had died, including Epstein and
- 1:22Speaker 1: PBPD detective Joseph Riccardi's investing employees could not be found.
- 1:27Speaker 1: On specified witnesses, memories had been corrupted, including as a
- 1:31Speaker 1: result of related civil litigation, and documents had been lost
- 1:35Speaker 1: or destroyed. On April 16, 2021, Judge Nathan denied the motion.
- 1:41Speaker 1: She found that Maxwell had not shown either that the
- 1:43Speaker 1: government had intentionally delayed bringing charges for an improper purpose,
- 1:48Speaker 1: or that such a delay had seriously damaged her ability
- 1:52Speaker 1: to mount a defense. findings that were required to establish
- 1:56Speaker 1: such a claim. It was highly speculative, Judge Nathan stated,
- 2:00Speaker 1: that the death of any witness, forgotten memories, or loss
- 2:03Speaker 1: of records would make a meaningful difference in the case.
- 2:07Speaker 1: She rejected Maxwell's vague and unsubstantiated assertion that had Epstein
- 2:12Speaker 1: or Detective Ricari been alive, they would have provided evidence
- 2:16Speaker 1: exculpating Maxwell. And Maxwell's bare assertion that numerous witnesses are
- 2:21Speaker 1: engaged in perjurious conspiracy against her was manifestly inadequate to
- 2:26Speaker 1: warrant dismissal of the indictment. On May 25, 2021, Maxwell
- 2:31Speaker 1: moved to dismiss the S-2 indictment on the same ground.
- 2:35Speaker 1: On August 13, 2021, Judge Nathan denied the motion. As
- 2:39Speaker 1: with the first motion, Judge Nathan concluded Maxwell had not
- 2:42Speaker 1: suffered prejudice from any delay. On February 11, 2022, after
- 2:48Speaker 1: her conviction, Maxwell moved for a new trial. including based
- 2:51Speaker 1: on pre-indictment delay. She reiterated her claim to have been
- 2:56Speaker 1: prejudiced by the unavailability of potential witnesses, now including Albert Pinto,
- 3:01Speaker 1: an architect who had worked for Epstein, and lost documents.
- 3:05Speaker 1: On April 29, 2022, Judge Nathan denied that motion. She
- 3:10Speaker 1: noted that even assuming Maxwell's factual assertions were accurate, she
- 3:14Speaker 1: had not made any claim that the government had intentionally
- 3:17Speaker 1: delayed the indictment to gain a tactical advantage. As required
- 3:21Speaker 1: to establish such a claim, Judge Nathan noted the trial
- 3:24Speaker 1: testimony supplied legitimate explanations for the government having not pursued
- 3:30Speaker 1: an earlier indictment of Maxwell. For example, several witnesses, including Jane, Kate,
- 3:35Speaker 1: and Carolyn, had testified at the trial that their cooperation
- 3:38Speaker 1: with the government's investigation was relatively recent, suggesting that an
- 3:43Speaker 1: earlier prosecution was not feasible. In any event, Judge Nathan
- 3:47Speaker 1: found Maxwell had not shown actual and substantial prejudice from
- 3:52Speaker 1: any delay. As to the two major sets of lost
- 3:55Speaker 1: evidence Maxwell claimed would have assisted her, one, flight records,
- 3:59Speaker 1: financial documents, phone records, and Epstein's property records and testimony
- 4:04Speaker 1: by four employees of Epstein's. Maxwell had not shown that
- 4:08Speaker 1: such would have supported her defense. Maxwell also failed to
- 4:12Speaker 1: show that the loss of such evidence was caused by
- 4:15Speaker 1: the pre-indictment delay. Judge Nathan noted that tellingly Maxwell had
- 4:20Speaker 1: not explained why the former Epstein employees who had testified
- 4:24Speaker 1: at trial or had been on the party's witness list
- 4:27Speaker 1: could not have also testified to the information Maxwell asserted
- 4:30Speaker 1: had been lost. Nor had Maxwell shown that any unavailable
- 4:35Speaker 1: witness would have meaningfully altered her defense as none could
- 4:38Speaker 1: testify directly as to whether or not Maxwell and Epstein
- 4:42Speaker 1: sexually abused the victims. Assessment This section 2255 claim rehashes
- 4:48Speaker 1: the argument Maxwell repeatedly pressed before Judge Nathan that documents
- 4:53Speaker 1: and witnesses, including Epstein, Detective Ricari, and Pinto, had become
- 4:57Speaker 1: unavailable between Maxwell's crimes and her prosecution and that she
- 5:01Speaker 1: was thereby denied due process. This argument is procedurally barred
- 5:06Speaker 1: because Maxwell could have pursued it on direct appeal, but
- 5:10Speaker 1: did not do so. Maxwell's attempts to avoid this bar
- 5:13Speaker 1: are by claiming that new evidence shows that there were
- 5:16Speaker 1: 25 men with whom victims' lawyers reached secret settlements who
- 5:20Speaker 1: could equally be considered co-conspirators of Epstein. Maxwell argues that
- 5:25Speaker 1: she would have called them as witnesses at her trial
- 5:28Speaker 1: had she known of their existence. But Maxwell does not
- 5:31Speaker 1: support this factual claim. Her only basis for it's a
- 5:34Speaker 1: transcript from a May 14th, 2024 podcast featuring a lawyer
- 5:38Speaker 1: for various Epstein and Maxwell victims. On that podcast, the
- 5:43Speaker 1: lawyer vaguely alleged that Epstein had been sent or had
- 5:46Speaker 1: sent victims to be abused by certain friends, who Epstein
- 5:50Speaker 1: then blackmailed. The lawyer opined, so let's just say that
- 5:53Speaker 1: over the years, there's 25 of those individuals. This is uncorroborated.
- 5:58Speaker 1: Conjectural remark is a far cry from evidence that 25
- 6:03Speaker 1: unindicted co-conspirators exist, as Maxwell, without naming any of them, posits.
- 6:08Speaker 1: Maxwell's implication that most or all of these persons were
- 6:11Speaker 1: known long ago to law enforcement is also at odds
- 6:14Speaker 1: with the OPR's report findings. As to information known to DOJ,
- 6:20Speaker 1: OPR report at 167. Villafana told OPR, None of the
- 6:25Speaker 1: victims that we spoke to ever talked about any other
- 6:28Speaker 1: men being involved in abusing them. It was only Jeffrey Epstein.
- 6:32Speaker 1: USAO SDFL had not indicted or indicated interest in prosecuting
- 6:38Speaker 1: anyone other than the four-named female assistants. OPR concludes that
- 6:42Speaker 1: the evidence does not show that Acosta, Laurie, or Villafana
- 6:46Speaker 1: agreed to the non-prosecution provision to protect any of Epstein's political, celebrity,
- 6:51Speaker 1: or other influential associates. Regardless, Maxwell does not adduce any
- 6:56Speaker 1: evidence that 1. Had these ostensible co-conspirators existed, their testimony
- 7:02Speaker 1: would have exculpated Maxwell. 2. These witnesses would have been
- 7:07Speaker 1: available had the charges against her been brought earlier, but
- 7:10Speaker 1: no longer were as of trial. Or three, the government
- 7:14Speaker 1: deliberately delayed indictment to inhibit Maxwell's ability to call them
- 7:18Speaker 1: in her defense. Maxwell thus has not shown any cause
- 7:23Speaker 1: or prejudice for her failure to raise this claim on
- 7:26Speaker 1: direct appeal, and for the reasons cogently and repeatedly explained
- 7:30Speaker 1: by Judge Nathan, this claim is meritless. 5. Claim 8.
- 7:35Speaker 1: Sentence Defects Maxwell next claims that Judge Nathan erred in
- 7:39Speaker 1: imposing a 240-month sentence and a $ 750, 000 fine. She makes
- 7:45Speaker 1: numerous arguments to this end, each is barred and substantively baseless.
- 7:50Speaker 1: Relevant Background At sentencing after resolving Maxwell's remaining objections, the
- 7:56Speaker 1: factual findings in the Prestonance Investigation Report, Judge Nathan heard
- 8:01Speaker 1: arguments from both sides on the calculation of the advisory
- 8:04Speaker 1: guidelines range. The defense argued that the 2003 guidelines manual
- 8:09Speaker 1: applied and that it yielded a range of 51 to
- 8:12Speaker 1: 63 months imprisonment. The government argued that the 2004 guidelines
- 8:18Speaker 1: manual applied and it yielded a range of 360 to
- 8:22Speaker 1: 660 months imprisonment. As to the applicable version of the
- 8:26Speaker 1: guidelines manual, Judge Nathan found that the 2004 manual would
- 8:30Speaker 1: increase Maxwell's guideline range and that the government had not
- 8:33Speaker 1: shown by a preponderance that the conspiracy had extended into
- 8:37Speaker 1: November and December 2004. To avoid an ex post facto
- 8:42Speaker 1: problem in which Maxwell was subject to a higher sentence
- 8:45Speaker 1: on account of law that entirely post dated her offense,
- 8:48Speaker 1: Judge Nathan therefore applied the 2003 manual. In calculating the
- 8:53Speaker 1: advisory guidelines, range under that manual, Judge Nathan found certain
- 8:58Speaker 1: enhancements to apply, including 1. Pattern of Activity under USSG
- 9:03Speaker 1: Section 4B1. 5B based on Maxwell's participation in prohibited sexual misconduct
- 9:10Speaker 1: with minors on multiple occasions. Leadership under USSG, Section 3B. 1. 1a,
- 9:17Speaker 1: based on Maxwell having functioned as an organizer or leader
- 9:21Speaker 1: in criminal activity involving five or more participants, or that
- 9:24Speaker 1: there was otherwise extensive undue influence. 3. Undue influence under USSG,
- 9:31Speaker 1: Section 2G. 1. 1, based on the significant age gaps between Epstein
- 9:35Speaker 1: and Maxwell and their minor victims, and at least one
- 9:38Speaker 1: victim's financial instability, and four additional victim groups under USSG
- 9:44Speaker 1: Section 3D1. 4 and 2G1. 1. D1, based on certain minor victims. Applying
- 9:52Speaker 1: the 2003 manual, Judge Nathan calculated guidelines as recommending a
- 9:56Speaker 1: sentence between 188 and 235 months. imprisonment and a fine
- 10:02Speaker 1: on each count between $ 20, 000 and $ 200, 000. Judge Nathan heard
- 10:08Speaker 1: arguments from both sides on how the U.S. Code 18
- 10:11Speaker 1: Section 3553A factors applied and heard statements by five victims.
- 10:17Speaker 1: Judge Nathan then set out her assessments of the factors
- 10:20Speaker 1: favoring a high sentence. These included that Maxwell had directly
- 10:24Speaker 1: and repeatedly and over the course of many years participated
- 10:28Speaker 1: in a horrific scheme to entice, transport and traffic underage girls,
- 10:32Speaker 1: some as young as 14, for sexual abuse by and
- 10:36Speaker 1: with Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell had played a pivotal role in
- 10:40Speaker 1: facilitating their abuse through a series of deceptive tactics. And
- 10:44Speaker 1: as a sophisticated adult woman, Maxwell had provided an initial
- 10:48Speaker 1: veneer of responsibility and even safety, which enabled her to
- 10:52Speaker 1: manipulate the victims and normalize sexual abuse through her involvement, encouragement,
- 10:58Speaker 1: and instruction. The damage done to these young girls was incalculable.
- 11:03Speaker 1: As mitigating factors, Judge Nathan noted, Maxwell was then more
- 11:07Speaker 1: than 60 years old, did not have any criminal history,
- 11:10Speaker 1: and had experienced a demanding father and the death of
- 11:13Speaker 1: her brother early in life. But Judge Nathan noted, even
- 11:17Speaker 1: at sentencing, Maxwell had continued to blame others and did
- 11:20Speaker 1: not express remorse or acceptance of responsibility. She imposed a
- 11:25Speaker 1: slightly above-guideline sentence of 240 months imprisonment and a $ 750, 000 fine, $ 250, 000
- 11:32Speaker 1: on each of the counts 3, 4, and 6. Assessment
- 11:37Speaker 1: Maxwell makes numerous arguments why her sentence was legally erroneous.
- 11:41Speaker 1: Each was either rejected or foregone on direct appeal. Each
- 11:46Speaker 1: is also meritless. All right, we're going to wrap up
- 11:49Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode dealing with the topic,
- 11:51Speaker 1: we're going to pick up where we left off. All
- 11:54Speaker 1: the information that goes with this episode can be found
- 11:58Speaker 1: in the description box.