Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 10) (9/30/26)

Transcript

Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 10) (9/30/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 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's order denying Ghislaine
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's attempt for a new trial. Maxwell's Section 2255 claim,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: based on an ostensible breach of the SDNY's prosecution team
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: disclosure obligation, fails for multiple reasons. First, neither Detective Parkinson
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: nor any other person involved in the 2005-2010 investigation PBPD
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: investigation into Epstein was part of the SDNY prosecution team.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: USAO-SDNY opened its investigation into Epstein and later Maxwell in 2018,
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: at least eight years after PBPD's investigation concluded. Notwithstanding the
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: lack of an obligation to do so, USAO-SDNY requested, reviewed,
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: and disclosed to Maxwell discoverable material from the investigative file
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: for the investigation. and that held by the Palm Beach
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: State's Attorney's Office. See Docket 63 at 5-7. And it
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: contacted the clerk of court in Palm Beach, who through
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: no apparent fault of USAO-SDNY, provided errant information that USAO-SDNY
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: relayed to Maxwell's defense team. The prosecution team did not
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: violate Brady or any other disclosure obligation by conveying to
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: the defense the information it was given. It acted with
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: appropriate solicitude, for Maxwell's rights and interests. Second, Detective Parkinson's
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: grand jury testimony is neither material nor exculpatory as to Maxwell.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: Maxwell claims that Detective Parkinson perjured himself by testifying at
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: her trial that he found the massage table in the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: south bathroom with a shower. Maxwell portrays his earlier testimony
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: before the Palm Beach grand jury as stating that he
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: found the massage table in the north bathroom with a bathtub. That, however,
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: mischaracterizes his grand jury testimony. There, Detective Parkinson stated that
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: there was a massage table in this bathroom, but the
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: transcript does not reflect which bathroom he was referring to. Parkinson, G.J.,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: transcript at 110 and 11. Maxwell has thus not shown
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: an inconsistency with his later trial testimony. Third, even assuming
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: that Detective Parkinson had testified unequivocally before the grand jury
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: that he had found the massage table in the north
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: bathroom with the tub and not the south bathroom, Maxwell's
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: claim would still fail. She has not shown that testimony
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: errantly identifying the particular bathroom would have been perjurous as
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: opposed to inadvertently incorrect. See United States v. Gonzalez, FRD 280-282,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: SDNY 1960. A bare allegation of perjury does not entitle
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: an applicant to relief under Section 2255. United States v. Light,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 1986. Perjury requires that a witness believe that
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: a testimony he gives is false. See also Salazar Espinoza,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: First United States, SDNY July 11, 2011. When false testimony
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: is provided by a government witness without the prosecution's knowledge,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: due process is violated only if the testimony was material
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: and the court is left with a firm belief that,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: but for the perjured testimony, the defendant would most likely
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: not have been convicted. And had there been such an
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: inconsistency between Detective Parkinson's 2006 and 2021 testimony, as to
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: this particular, such would have been highly unlikely to impeach
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: Detective Parkinson's credibility, given that the search had occurred more
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: than 16 years before his trial testimony. And his testimony
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: in general about finding the massage table in the house,
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: in particular, was corroborated by other testimonial, documentary, and video evidence. C.E.G.G.X.296R
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: at 23, 11, 2315 through 18. Search video showing massage
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: table laid against a wall with photographs outside the door
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: of the south bathroom with a shower. Carolyn's testimony that
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: she went with Virginia to Epstein's bedroom into his bathroom
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: area with a shower from which Virginia pulled out the
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: massage table while Carolyn looked at all the photos that
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: were on the wall. The massage table would still assuredly
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: have been admitted at trial as it would still easily
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: clear the relatively low bar for authentication. Rule 901 does
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: not require a proponent of evidence to rule out all
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: possibilities inconsistent with authenticity or to prove beyond any doubt
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: that the evidence is what it reports to be. United
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: States v. Gagliardi, 2nd Circuit, 2007. Standard for authentication is
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: one of reasonable likelihood and is minimal testimony of a
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: claimed to be is sufficient to satisfy this standard. And
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: had the massage table been found in the North bathroom
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: with a bathtub as Maxwell claims Detective Parkinson's 2006 grand
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: jury reflects, that fact would have further inculpated her, because
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: that bathroom was the one containing Maxwell's photo, portrait, and
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: personalized stationery. Fourth, contrary to Maxwell's claim, the massage table
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: was far from the only evidence of interstate commerce adduced
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: at trial. FedEx records and victim testimonies independently established that
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: Epstein caused packages to be sent from New York to
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: Carolyn in Florida. Carolyn's testimony that Epstein sent lingerie and
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: other items from Manhattan to her home in West Palm Beach.
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: Carolyn's testimony that she gave her home address to Maxwell
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: because Maxwell had asked for it because Jeffrey Epstein wanted
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: to send me some items. GX 801 through 803. FedEx
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: records reflecting packages sent to Carolyn when she was 15
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: years old. And the FedEx records show that Maxwell had
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: used the same account to send packages from Epstein's office
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: during the same time period. GX801 at 8, 802 at 405,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: 803 at 7. FedEx account invoices with Maxwell's name. And
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: as the government argued in summation, these records severally establish
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: the use of interstate commerce in connection with the charged defenses.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: Transcript at 2894 and 95. For all the reasons, This
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: claim is meritless. D. Remaining claims including related to EFTA documents.
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: Maxwell makes dozens of other claims that are conclusory and unsupported,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: mainly citing documents disclosed pursuant to the EFTA. Many of
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: these documents were produced to Maxwell in discovery. Others reflect
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: internal USAO-SDNY memoranda that summarize what certain individuals told the government,
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: the contents of which were produced to Maxwell and its
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: production of Jenksack material, which the government produced both as
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: to testifying and non-testifying witnesses. And the remaining documents are
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: at best irrelevant to and many under minor claims. See
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: example 39-49-55. Maxwell's remaining claims are all meritless. E. Maxwell's
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: request for a hearing. Maxwell seeks an evidentiary hearing on
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: her claims. She is not entitled to one. Maxwell argues
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: that but for the admission of the massage table that
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: she would not have been convicted. She bases this claim
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: on Juror 50's statement during a post-trial interview that the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: table had been crucial in interstate commerce. But for the
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: reasons above, the massage table would have been admitted regardless
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: of whether Maxwell had access to Detective Parkinson's 2006 grand
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: jury transcript. Even had it not been, that reported comment
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: by a single juror does not come close to showing
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: that Maxwell... otherwise likely would have been acquitted. See United
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: States v. Siddiqui, 2nd Circuit, 1992. As to the arguments
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: not addressed in full in this decision, the Court adopts
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: by reference the arguments by the government in its opposition,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: which comprehensively dispatches these. See E.G., Opposition at 49 and 52,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: arguing that other miscellaneous arguments by Maxwell likewise fail. See
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: also Miranda v. Bennett, 2nd Circuit, 2003. Where a habeas
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: petition is fashly inadequate, district court may deny it with
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: the tersest of orders. STNY, November 12, 1993. Appropriate for
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: district court not to discuss each of petitioners' frivolous claims.
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: To warrant a hearing, the motion must set forth specific
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: facts supported by competent evidence, raising detailed and controverted issues
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: of fact that, if proved at a hearing, would entitle
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: the defendant to relief. Gonzales v. United States, 2nd Circuit, 2013.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: Airy generalities, conclusory assertions, and hearsay statements will not suffice,
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: because none of these would be admissible. Evidence out of hearing. U.S. v. Aiello,
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 1987. Nor will vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible assertions,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Gonzales 722, see also Puglisi v. U.S., 2nd Circuit, 2009.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Bald allegations unsupported by evidentiary facts do not warrant a hearing.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: If it plainly appears from the motion, exhibits, and record
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: of prior proceedings that the move-in is not entitled to relief,
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: the judge must dismiss the motion without a hearing. For
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: the reasons reviewed in depth above, Maxwell's petition falls very
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: far from the mark. Nearly all its claims are procedurally barred.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: The overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence adduced at trial conclusively
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: established her guilt, and her petition claims are demonstrably meritless
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: and generally based on speculation, distortion, and outright falsehoods. There's
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: no fact that Maxwell fairly puts in dispute that has
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: any potential to disturb the outcome of her trial. In
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: these circumstances, there is no requirement to hold an evidentiary hearing. U.S. v.
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: Lopez Cabrera, SDNY, March 23, 2023 No hearing where a
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: defendant did not identify any issue of fact, let alone
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: a controverted issue of consequential fact, of the sort that
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: an evidentiary hearing would assist the court to resolve. U.S.
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: 1st Robinson, SDNY, June 6, 2025. Conclusion. For the reasons above,
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: the court denies Maxwell's petition for relief pursuant to U.S.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: Code 28, Section 2255. Maxwell has not made a substantial
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: showing of denial of constitutional right. An appellate review is
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: therefore not warranted. See U.S. 28, Section 2253, Love v. McRae,
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: 2nd Circuit, 2005. The court certifies that any appeal from
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: this order would not be taken in good faith. Informa
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: pauperis status is thus denied for purposes of appeal. The
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: clerk of court is respectfully directed to mail a copy
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: of this decision to Maxwell at the address on file.
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: terminate all pending motions and close case 25-SIV-10468. So ordered
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: by Paul Engelmeyer and dated August 25th, 2026. All the
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: the description box.