Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 3) (9/28/26)

Transcript

Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 3) (9/28/26) · 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 denial
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: of Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to get rid of her conviction.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Assessment The claim in Maxwell's Section 2255 Petition of Misconduct
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: by Juror 50 is squarely barred by a mandate rule.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: The Second Circuit conclusively rejected this claim. It affirmed Judge
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: Nathan's careful, comprehensive, and fact-based determination that Juror 50 had
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: been fair and impartial. And Maxwell does not make any
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: argument that there has been an intervening change in the
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: law in this area, much less one that might assist
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: her since the Circuit's decision. Attempting to circumvent the mandate rule,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Maxwell claims that the new reporting establishes actual bias by
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: Juror 50 undermining the ruling. She cites six exhibits as
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: ostensibly impeaching Juror 50's hearing testimony. These exhibits are non-events.
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: They largely consist of items such as podcasts or news
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: articles available to Maxwell during the post-trial litigation concerning Juror 50.
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: To the extent they post-date that litigation, they do not
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: contain any new information supporting Maxwell's bid for relief. On
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: the contrary, these support the conclusion reached by Judge Maxwell
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: and the Second Circuit. That juror 50 served fairly and impartially.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Four of Maxwell's cited exhibits were available to her long
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: before her direct appeal, which was filed on July 8th, 2022.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Podcast with reporter Lucia Osborne Crowley. January 4th, 2022. Independent
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: article by same. Transcript of January 11th, 2022 podcast with
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: the same. Seven, transcript of Paramount documentary, Ghislaine, Partner in Crime,
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: released April 6, 2022. Three of those, exhibits four through six,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: also predate the March 8, 2022 hearing. And Maxwell does
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: not argue or adduce evidence suggesting a cause for or
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: prejudice from her failure to cite such material in her
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: direct appeal. Her claims based on these materials are thus
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: procedurally barred. Even if Maxwell were not barred from raising
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: claims based on these material, they would not assist her.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: On the contrary, they reinforced what Judge Nathan was correct
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: in finding that juror 50 was credible and inserved impartially.
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: CEG 4 at 10 Osborne Crowley stating on a podcast
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: that juror 50's best memory was that he filled in
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: those forms the juror questionnaire honestly. 5 at 2 through
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: 4 Osborne Crowley stating writing an independent article that Juror
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: 50 found that all of the accusers corroborated each other
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: and were backed up by other evidence, and stated in
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: a separate interview with Mail Online that he could not
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: remember the details of the 50-question pretrial questionnaire, but he
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: felt he had answered all the questions honestly. The remaining
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: two exhibits cited by Maxwell are dated in 2024, after
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: her appeal was decided, but these merely rehash information contained
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: in the above pre-hearing material. One excerpt, three pages, from
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: Osborne Crowley's 2024 book, The Lasting Harm, regarding Maxwell's case.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: These describe Osborne Crowley's interactions with Juror 50 between the
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: verdict and the March 8, 2022 hearing. They closely track,
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: often verbatim, the accounts the author had given of the
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: same conversations years earlier in the above podcast and independent article.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: The other exhibit is Osborne Crowley's February 4, 2024 article
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: in The Independent. It similarly recaps her 2022 reporting. Neither
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: writing reflects new information relevant to Maxwell's claims here, and
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: as with Maxwell's other exhibits, both contain information that supports
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: that Judge Nathan and the Second Circuit were correct in
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: rejecting Maxwell's claims of juror bias. Quoting Juror 50 as
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: telling the author, I believe so strongly in the concept
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: of innocence until proven guilty, I went into every day
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: of the trial assuming that Maxwell didn't do it. stating
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: that Juror 50 told the author that he walked into
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: the trial believing wholly in the American justice system's founding
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: principle that everyone's innocent until proven guilty, and that he
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: decided her guilt only after hearing the evidence. Maxwell's petition
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: next claims that Judge Nathan erred by ostensibly not disclosing
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: certain communication between jurors and her chamber related to Juror
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: 50's post-trial interviews, and that at least two other jurors
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: lied in connection with Vordier concerning personal histories of abuse.
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: These claims, which rehash arguments rejected by Judge Nathan, are
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: foreclosed on this petition, and substantively wrong. On December 31, 2021,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: after trial, Judge Nathan notified the parties that a juror
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: had contacted court staff about having been approached by a reporter,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: despite the juror's ostensible anonymity. Chamber staff notified all jurors
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: regarding this development, and juror replied to the notification to
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: Flag News Reporting, about Juror 50's public statement. Maxwell's counsel
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: requested those communication between Judge Nathan's chambers and the jurors,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: arguing that they could shed light on the identity of
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: another juror besides 50, who, according to a New York
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Times article, had described suffering sexual abuse as a child.
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: Judge Nathan found the request based on nothing but unfounded speculation,
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: but to ensure a complete record, transmitted the communication to
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the parties under seal with juror names and contact information redacted.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Maxwell thus received the communications that she now claims to
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: have been denied. As to her claim that jurors other
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: than juror 50 lied during voir dire and or were biased,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: she does not offer any proof of such beyond that
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: which Judge Nathan found insufficient to justify inquiry into other jurors.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: This claim is thus procedurally barred and substantively meritless. 2.
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: Claim 2. Breach of Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement Maxwell's petition
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: next renews her claims that Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement with
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in this district.
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: As justification for reprising these rejected claims, she cites documents
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: concerning the NPA that DOJ publicly released pursuant to the AFTA.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: She also argues that the government violated the Brady and
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: Discovery obligations by not conducting additional searches for material related
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: to the NPA. and for not producing those materials during prosecution. A.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: MPA's scope. Relevant background. In 2019, DOJ's Office of Professional
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: Responsibility investigated the negotiations concerning the 2007 Epstein MPA and,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: in 2020, issued a 290-page report setting out its findings.
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: It found in relevant part as follows. In 2005, the
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: Palm Beach Police Department in Florida issued opened an investigation
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: into Epstein based on the complaint of a 14-year-old girl's parents.
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: The PBPD later referred this matter to the Federal Bureau
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: of Investigation. That investigation culminated in a draft 60-count indictment
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: that would have charged Epstein and the Southern District of
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: Florida for the sexual abuse of multiple victims. On September 24, 2007,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: the USAO, SDFL, entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: the MPA was signed on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: then U.S. Attorney for that district. Under it, Epstein agreed
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: to plead guilty in a pending Florida state case and
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: receive a sentence of at least 18 months imprisonment and
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: 12 months community control. He consented to jurisdiction in the
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: SDFL for civil suits involving victims specified by USAO-SDFL. In exchange,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: USAO-SDFL agreed to defer prosecution in this district. Provided that
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: Epstein complied with the terms, the NPA stated no prosecution
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: for offenses then under investigation by the FBI and U.S.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Office will be instituted in this district. The NPA
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: included a provision that had been added with little discussion
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: or consideration by prosecutors. The United States also agrees that
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: co-conspirator of Epstein, including but not limited to four named individuals,
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: none of whom was Maxwell. In the instant case, Maxwell
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: twice moved to dismiss the charges against her on the
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: grounds that they were barred by the NPA, first after
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: the government filed the S-1 indictment, and again after it
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: filed the S-2 indictment. On April 16th and August 13th, 2021, respectively,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: Judge Nathan denied those motions. Judge Nathan found that the
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution in SDNY and denied
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's request to hold an evidentiary hearing as to the
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: party's intent in the NPA. On September 17, 2024, the
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Second Circuit affirmed, under United States v. Nabi, it held that,
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: well established in the Circuit, that a plea agreement, including
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: one executed outside the Circuit, binds only the office of
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: the United States Attorney for the district in which the
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: plea is entered and unless it affirmatively appears that the
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: agreement contemplates a broader restriction, and nothing in the NPA
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: showed that it was intended to bind districts other than
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: the SDFL. To the contrary, its scope was expressly limited
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: to that district. The NPA's negotiation history, consistent with its text,
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: likewise indicated that the agreement was not intended to bind
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: other districts. State's Attorney's Manual, adds prohibiting non-prosecution agreements that
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: purported to bind other districts absent express written approval by
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: certain officials, which were indisputably not granted. As to the
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: 2007 Epstein NPA, the Circuit affirmed the denial of Maxwell's
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: motion without an evidentiary hearing. On April 10, 2025, Maxwell
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ. on the question
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: whether the NPA bound districts other than the SDFL. On
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court denied that writ. All right, folks,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right here. And in the
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to dive back in and pick
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: up where we left off. All the information that goes
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: with this episode can be found in the description box.