Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 2) (9/27/26)

Transcript

Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 2) (9/27/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're going to pick up where we left
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: off with Judge Engelmeyer's order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's request to
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: have her conviction tossed. F. The Epstein Files Transparency Act
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: and DOJ's public release of material under the act. Maxwell's
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: petition relies in part on material that DOJ recently made
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: public available pursuant to the EFTA. On November 19th, 2025,
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Congress nearly unanimously passed and the President signed the Act.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: It required the Attorney General within 30 days of enactment
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: and subject to certain exceptions to make publicly available all
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: unclassified records, documents, communication, and investigative material in the possession
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: of the DOJ related to Epstein and or Maxwell. On
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: November 24, 2025, DOJ moved this Court for an expedited
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: ruling 1 authorizing DOJ pursuant to the EFTA, to unseal
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: grand jury transcripts and exhibits in Maxwell's case, and to
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: modifying the protective order governing discovery produced to Maxwell to
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: the extent that such would otherwise prohibit DOJ from publicly
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: disclosing material as required by the Act. On December 9, 2025,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: the Court held the Act overrode, Rule 6e, in the
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: very limited context of the Maxwell and Epstein grand juries.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: It thus granted DOJ's motion to unseal grand jury material
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: in Maxwell's case and modified the protective order to permit
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: the DOJ to publicly release documents covered by the Act,
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: except insofar as materials from either category contained sensitive victim information,
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: which the Act expressly exempted from public release. Between December 19,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: 2025 and January 30, 2026, DOJ published nearly 3.5 million
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: pages of documents covered by the EFTA, plus more than 180,000
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: images and 2,000 videos. See Office of the Deputy Attorney General,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Production of Department Material. DOJ stated that the material had
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: been collected from the following sources. One, the investigation of
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Epstein by the USAO SDFL, and later prosecution of him
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Excuse me, of New York. SDNY cases against prison employees
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: arising from Epstein's suicide, 4. USAO-SDFL's 2010 prosecution of Alfredo Rodriguez,
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: a former employee of Epstein who worked in the Palm
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: Beach residence for obstruction of justice. 5. Multiple FBI investigations. 6.
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: The DOJ Inspector General investigation into Epstein's suicide. January 30th, DAG,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: letter at 2. The material was publicly available online. G.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: This Petition On December 17, 2025, Maxwell filed her pro
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: se petition under Section 2255. The court set a briefing
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: schedule with the caveat that it would revise the schedule
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: if Maxwell moved for leave to amend her petition based
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: on material release pursuant to the EFTA. The court accordingly
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: set a revised briefing schedule. On April 20, 2026, nearly
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: three weeks after the deadline to do so, Maxwell filed
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: an amended petition. which supplemented without replacing her original petition.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: On May 19, 2026, the government opposed. On July 27, 2026,
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: without the court's authorization, Maxwell filed an additional supplement to
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: her petition. 2. Applicable Legal Standards A. Section 2255 Petitions
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: Generally Section 2255 of Title XXVIII allows a court to vacate,
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: set aside, or correct a sentence imposed in violation of
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: the Constitution or laws of the United States. U.S. Code 28,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: Section 2255A. Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy and will
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: not be allowed to do service for an appeal. Bowsley v.
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: United States, 523 U.S. 614-621. To obtain relief under Section 2255,
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: a defendant must establish a constitutional error. a lack of
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: jurisdiction in the sentencing court, or an error of law
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: or fact that constitutes a fundamental defect which inherently results
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: in a complete miscarriage of justice, that sets a significantly
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: higher hurdle than would exist on direct appeal. Where a
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: defendant proceeds pro se, her submissions are to be liberally
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: construed in her favor and read to raise the strongest
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: argument that they suggest. Nonetheless, a pro se defendant is
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: not exempt from compliance with relevant rules and of procedural
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: and substantive law. B. Claims raised in Section 2255 petition
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: that have already been decided on direct appeal. A Section
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: 2255 petition generally cannot be used to relitigate questions which
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: were raised and considered on direct appeal. A district court
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: may revisit questions decided on direct appeal only when there
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: has been an intervening change in the law and a
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: new law would have exonerated the defendant had it been
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: the force before the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: The defendant bears the burden to show that there is
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: a new law, which, when applied to her claims, would
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: result in a different disposition. Absence such a showing, the
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: defendant is, as a threshold matter, collaterally e-stopped from re-litigating
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: such issues. C. Claims raised in a Section 2255 petition
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: that could have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: A Section 2255 petition also generally cannot relitigate issues that
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: could have been raised on direct appeal, but were not.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: In general, a defendant is barred from collaterally challenging convictions
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: under Section 2255 on a ground that he failed to
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: raise on direct appeal. To raise such a claim, the
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: defendant must show cause for failing to raise the claim
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: at the appropriate time and prejudice from the alleged error.
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: Mui 614 F. 3d at 54, or that she is actually innocent. Bowsley,
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: 523 U.S. at 622. Cause is something external to the
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: petitioner that cannot fairly be attributed to her. Coleman v. Thompson,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: 501 U.S. 722, 753, 1991. Such may exist where a
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: claim is so novel that its legal basis was not
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: reasonably available to counsel earlier. Reed v. Ross, 84. Novelty, however,
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: cannot constitute cause if it means simply that a claim
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: was unacceptable or to that particular court at that particular time. Rather,
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: cause requires the reasonable unavailability of the factual basis for
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: the claim to have prevented petitioner from raising the claim.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: A claim is reasonably available if at the time of
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: the procedural default it was being raised by other litigants
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: and addressed by the courts. See Bowsley 523 U.S. at 622-23.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: Claim not novel where decision showed that legal basis for
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: a claim is was reasonably available. Prejudice requires the defendant
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: to show not merely that the errors at her trial
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: created the possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: her actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting her entire trial with
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: error of constitutional dimensions. The burden is even greater than
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: the showing required to establish plain error on direct appeal.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: A defendant who has procedurally defaulted her claim must show
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: that there is a reasonable probability that that the result
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: of the trial would have been different but for the error.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: A defendant may also obtain relief under Section 2255 if
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: she establishes that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: from a failure to entertain the claim. The term fundamental
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: miscarriage of justice requires the actual innocence of the defendant.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: Actual innocence means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency. 3.
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: Discussion Maxwell's Section 2255 petition brings ten principal claims. These
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: fall into three categories. 1. Three claims Maxwell raised on
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: her unsuccessful direct appeal, which are barred by the mandate rule,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: and are substantively meritless. 2. Six claims Maxwell could have
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: raised on direct appeal, but did not, which are barred
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: absent a showing of cause for her failure to do so,
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: and resulting prejudice which Maxwell does not make, or for
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: the most part even attempt, and which are meritless. And three,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: a single remaining claim alleging that the government withheld material
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence relating to a massage table at Epstein's Palm
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: Beach home, which is also meritless. A. Claims already rejected
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: on direct appeal and thus foreclosed by the mandate rule.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Three claims alleging juror misconduct, breach of the 2007 Epstein NPA,
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: and constructive amendment of the S2 indictment were already considered
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: and rejected by the Second Circuit. To the extent that
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Maxwell argues that new evidence has come to light, ostensibly,
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: supporting those claims, those materials predate her direct appeal, and
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: are irrelevant and or do not warrant the relief she seeks.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: These claims are foreclosed under the mandate rule. They are
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: also meritless. 1. Claim 1. Germ misconduct. Maxwell's petition claims
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: that Juror 50 deliberately concealed during voir dire that he
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: had been sexually abused and at a post-trial hearing on
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: the issue, falsely testified that he had given the inaccurate
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: jury questionnaire answers inadvertently. This misconduct, she claims, reflects that
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: Juror 50 was biased against her, giving rise to a
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a trial by
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: an impartial jury. She claims that other jurors may have
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: also failed to disclose personal histories of sexual abuse. She
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: also seeks disclosure of purportedly undisclosed post-trial communication between Juror
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: 50 and Judge Nathan Chambers. Relevant Backgrounds Before Maxwell's 2021 trial,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: prospective jurors completed a lengthy written questionnaire with multiple questions
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: arising from the nature of the charges. Juror 50 answered
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: no to the three questions that asked whether he, a friend,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: or a family member had ever been 1. the victim
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: of a crime, 2. the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: or sexual assault, or 3. accused of sexual harassment, sexual abuse,
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: or sexual assault. In the same questionnaire, juror 50 stated
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: that that he could be fair and impartial. Juror 50
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: Questionnaire at 7, agreeing to abide by the principle that
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: a juror is required by law to make his or
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: her decision based solely on the evidence or lack of
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: evidence presented in court, and not on the basis of conjecture, suspicion, bias, sympathy,
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: or prejudice, indicating that, notwithstanding evidence alleging sex crimes against
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: underage girls, Juror 50 could be fair and impartial. Based
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: on the completed questionnaires, the party selected prospective jurors to
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: proceed to in-person voir dire. After voir dire, Judge Nathan
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: impaneled a jury that included Juror 50. After the jury's verdict,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: Juror 50 gave press interviews in which he stated that
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: he was a survivor of child sexual abuse. On learning
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: of the interview, the government filed a letter on January 5, 2022,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: alerting Judge Nathan and requesting a hearing. Maxwell then moved
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: for a new trial under Rule 33. On March 8, 2022,
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: Judge Nathan held a hearing at which Juror 50 testified,
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: under a grant of immunity, that his answers to the
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: three questionnaire questions related to sexual abuse had been inaccurate.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: But he testified that those had been inadvertent mistakes and
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: his personal experiences related to sexual abuse had not affected
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: his ability to be fair and impartial in serving on
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: the jury. On April 1, 2022, Judge Nathan found that
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: Juror 50 had testified credibly at the hearings. and he
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: had not been biased and would not have been stricken
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: for cause even if he had answered the questionnaire accurately,
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: and that his response at the hearing established that he
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: had served fairly and impartially. Judge Nathan based these findings
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: on her assessment that juror 50's tone and demeanor at
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: the hearing had evinced candor, the strong incentive for juror
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: 50 to be truthful, in that juror 50 could have
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: been charged with perjury had he lied at the hearing.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: the persuasiveness of his explanations, including that he had rushed
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: through the questionnaire without reading it carefully, and that he
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: did not often think about his past history of sexual abuse,
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: that this post-trial actions were consistent with inadvertent error, not
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: deliberate concealment, and that he had chosen after trial to
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: publicly disclose his history of abuse using his real name
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: and photographs, an irrational act for someone who had deliberately
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: lied in denying such abuse. and that on being confronted
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: during a Daily Mail video interview about the inconsistency between
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: his post-trial statement concerning his history of abuse and jury
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: questionnaire answers, his real-time reaction reflected genuine and complete surprise.
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: In affirming Maxwell's conviction in the Second Circuit Court, upheld
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: Judge Nathan's ruling denying Maxwell a new trial. The Circuit
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: noted that under McDonough, Power Equipment v. Greenwood, a party
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: seeking a new trial must first demonstrate that a juror
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire,
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: and then further show that a correct response would have
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. It
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: held that Judge Nathan had correctly applied McDonough, found Juror
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: 50's testimony credible, and determined that his inaccurate responses were
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: not deliberately incorrect, and that he would not have been
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: struck for cause if he had provided accurate answers. Emphasis
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: on original. Like Judge Nathan, the Circuit noted that Maxwell
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: had not challenged the inclusion on the jury of other
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: jurors who disclosed past experiences with sexual abuse, assault, and
• 14:09
  Speaker 1: or harassment. All right, we're going to wrap up right here.
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: And in the next episode, we're going to pick up
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: where we left off. All the information that goes with
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.