Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 4) (9/28/26)

Transcript

Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 4) (9/28/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 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 the order
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: denying Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to get her conviction overturned. First,
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Maxwell portrays certain EFTA records as revealing that the NPA
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: gave blanket transactional immunity to all co-conspirators of Epstein. But
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: to reach that conclusion, Maxwell distorts those materials. For example,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: her unauthorized supplement cited and attached a single page from
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: OPR's 2019 interview of Acosta, during which the questioner stated
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: that the NPA conferred blanket immunity on co-conspirators. Significantly, Acosta responded,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: although he understood how it could be read that way,
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: he did not want to characterize it as conferring such immunity.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: In any event, even if the EFTA records could be
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: read to imply that the co-conspirator immunity clause covered Maxwell
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: The Second Circuit's decision in Anabee, as the Circuit held
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: on Maxwell's appeal, holds that such a grant of immunity
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: would only bar the USAO SDFL from charging her, and
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: not the USAO SDNY, or offices in other districts. And
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: the EFTA documents cited by Maxwell drive home that point.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: On the very next page of OPR's Acosta interview, which
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: Maxwell omitted, for example, Acosta emphasized that an important point
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: to recognize is was the fact that the NPA was
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: limited to SDFL. Second, Maxwell claims that other EFTA records
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: indicate that DOJ officials outside USAO SDFL participated in negotiating
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: and approving the NPA. Their involvement, she asserts, means the
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: agreement bound the entire department, including SDNY. Even assuming the
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: truth of her factual assertions, Maxwell's take on the legal
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: implications is wrong. As the Second Circuit recognized, The operative U.S.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Attorney's Manual, now called the Justice Manual, stated unequivocally, no
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: or division without the express written approval of the U.S.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: attorneys in each affected district and or the assistant attorney
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: general of the criminal division. The EFTA records cited by
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Maxwell do not in any respect suggest that the U.S.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: Attorney for SDNY or the Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: in Washington approved, let alone provided express written approval for
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: the NPA. Third, Maxwell asserts that certain EFTA records suggest
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: that investigative steps were taken in New York as part
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: of the SDFL's 2005-2007 investigation into Epstein, and that this
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: causes the NPA to bind USAO-SDNY. The exhibits Maxwell attaches
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: do not support her claim. She states, for example, Exhibit
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: 5 to the reply supplement reflects that the expanding New
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: York investigation formed part of the broader factual landscape surrounding
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: the execution and implementation of the NPA. But that exhibit
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: is a one-page excerpt from a document of unstated provenance
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: that does not mention New York at all. And the
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: other records Maxwell cites are similarly irrelevant. They do not
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: reflect any intent by the NPA drafters or negotiating parties
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: to bind USAO, SDNY, or any U.S. Attorney's Office besides SDFL. Fourth,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: Maxwell cites communication contained in other EFTA documents between DOJ
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: personnel and private counsel for victims, ostensibly concerning the NPA scope.
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: These documents also do not avail her. A July 25,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: 2019 email between redacted parties, for example, states, My client's
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: Epstein victims were told back in 2013 that the NPA
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: did not extend to New York or other jurisdictions. And
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: that is the point we are making in Florida litigation
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: brought by victims under the CVRA. In sum, the EFTA
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: records that Maxwell claims support that the NPA-bound USAOSDNY are
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: irrelevant or underscore the correctness of Judge Nathan and the
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: Second Circuit's holdings to the contrary. B. Maxwell's Brady Claim
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's petition relatedly claims that the government violated its Brady
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: obligation by allegedly not searching for, nor disclosing to her,
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: certain materials related to the NPA, including the OPR report.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: That argument is procedurally barred and baseless. Relevant Background At
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: the initial pretrial conference held July 14, 2020, Judge Nathan
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: asked the government about its plan to ensure timely review
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: of files held by non-SDNY components of DOJ for potential
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: disclosures in the case. On October 7, 2020, the government
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: submitted a letter of response. It stated that the Second
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: Circuit case law did not require it to review or
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: produce Maxwell information held by other agencies because those had
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: not been part of the SDNY prosecution team. Nonetheless, the
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: government stated it had opted to go beyond its Brady
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: and other discovery obligations and collect and review certain material
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: associated with other investigations. including USAO-SDFL's earlier investigation of Epstein.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: It obtained via OPR, for example, the email inbox of
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: Marie Villafana, the lead assistant U.S. attorney on USAO-SDFL's investigation
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: of Epstein, and conducted targeted searches of terms relevant to
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's prosecution, including the names of witnesses, victims, and Maxwell.
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: On February 2, 2021, nearly 10 months before her trial,
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: the government produced the OPR report to Maxwell. By then,
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: the report was already available on the internet. On April 16, 2021,
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's request for discovery and an evidentiary
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: hearing regarding the NPA. Judge Nathan also directed the government
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: to state whether it considers any evidence related to negotiation
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: of the NPA to constitute Brady or Rule 6 material,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: Rule 16 material, and if so, to confirm that it
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: has or will disclose all such evidence. On April 23, 2021,
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: the government filed a letter stating that it had reviewed
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: the evidence in its possession for any that could support
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's assertion that the NPA was intended to 1. bind
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: other U.S. attorneys in other districts or 2. cover Maxwell
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: specifically on the premise that records to this effect would
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: constitute Brady material in that they could support Maxwell's construction
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: of the NPA. The government stated, however, that it did
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: not view any other material that are simply related to
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: the NPA as ones it was obliged to disclose under
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: Rule 16 or Brady. Based on its review of material
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: it had gathered from DOJ components, including USAO SDFL, the
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: government stated that it had identified materials broadly related to
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: the NPA, but had determined that none of those constitute
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: Brady material. Its letter described the expansive approach it had taken,
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: including by reviewing voluminous repositories of information held by other
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: DOJ components, which USAO SDNY had not been required to do.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: In affirming Maxwell's conviction, the Second Circuit held that Judge
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: Nathan had correctly denied Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: as barred by the NPA without an evidentiary hearing. Assessment
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's claim that the prosecution team denied O'Brady or other
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: material to which he was entitled is both barred and wrong.
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: The material disclosed under EFTA do not suggest that SDNY
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: breached any disclosure obligation, including Brady. The Brady Doctrine does
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: not require a prosecutor to deliver his entire file to
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: defense counsel, but only to produce information that is material
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: to the defendant's guilt or punishment. To establish a Brady violation,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: a defendant must show that 1. The evidence at issue
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: must be favorable to the accused, either because it's exculpatory
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: or because it's impeaching. 2. The evidence must have been suppressed,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: either willfully or inadvertently. And 3. And prejudice must have ensued.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: A defendant cannot satisfy the suppression requirement if the defendant
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: directly or through counsel either knew or should have known
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: that evidence. Even where a defendant proves that favorable information
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: was suppressed, no Brady violation has occurred unless that information
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: was material. There is a reasonable probability that had the
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability sufficient to
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: undermine confidence in the outcome. Undisclosed evidence will be deemed
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: material only if it could be reasonably taken to put
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: the whole case in such a different light as to
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: undermine confidence in the verdict. Measured against these standards, Maxwell's
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: claim of Brady violations is unsustainable. The SDNY prosecution team
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: exceeded its discovery obligation by proactively gathering files from SDFL
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: and other DOJ components, materials outside its possession, and hence
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: its Brady obligations. And as Judge Nathan noted in denying
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: Maxwell's motion to dismiss the indictment as barred by the NPA,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: Maxwell received access to an unusually large amount of information
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: about the NPA's negotiating history in the forms of the
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: OPR report. Again, seizing on the EFTA, Maxwell cites a
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: grab bag of documents released under the act to argue
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: that USAO SDNY violated Brady by ostensibly not searching for
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: and disclosing those documents to her. Her claim focuses on
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: a document Bates stamped, EFTA 00190632. She argues that the
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: prosecution did not inform her of a fact revealed by
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: that document, that there were ongoing negotiations while Epstein was
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: incarcerated and after the signature of the NPA, EFTA 00190632.
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: is an email chain from August 2008 among Acosta and
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: other members of USAO SDFL that appears to reflect a
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: discussion among those persons concerning a possible future agreement with
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: Epstein that might supersede the 2007 NPA. But that document
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: does not bespeak any violation by USAO SDNY of a
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: disclosure obligation, even assuming it was not produced to Maxwell
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: in connection with her prosecution. It's not material or favorable
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: to her. and its non-production to her did not cause
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: her prejudice. The dispositive agreement as to the scope of
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: USAO-SDFL's agreement with Epstein was the MPA, executed 11 months
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: before the August 2008 email exchange, and EFTA 00190632, which
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: consisted of internal communication with USAO-SDFL, did not purport to alter,
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: and legally could not have altered, the meaning of the
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: executed agreement. Even if these email communications had brought about
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: negotiations towards a possible superseding agreement with Epstein, these could
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: not have been modified, the original agreement, unless and until
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: they resulted in bilateral assent to a new agreement, and
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: Maxwell had not adduced any evidence that the 2007 Epstein
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: NPA was ever superseded or modified by any later agreement.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: To the contrary, her counsel argued for years in the
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: district court, in the Second Circuit, and with the Supreme
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: Court that the 2007 NPA was the only operative agreement.
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: EFTA 00190632 does not assist Maxwell, and other documents relating
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: to the NPA released under the EFTA do not either.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: The petition's assertion that there was a Brady breach as
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: a result of government ostensible non-production of those documents in discovery,
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: a claim that is tellingly not joined in by any
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: of Maxwell's trial or post-trial counsel, is conclusory, cynical, and wrong.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: In sum, the EFTA material Maxwell cites do not support relief.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: The prosecution team went above and beyond its disclosure obligations
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: and fully comply with Brady by collecting information outside its possession,
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: including from USAO, SDFL, and conducting reasonable searches of those materials.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: Although individual prosecutor is presumed to have knowledge of all
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: information gathered in connection with his office investigation of the case,
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: United States v. Avellino, 2nd Circuit, 1998. Knowledge on the
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: part of persons employed by a different office of the
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: government does not in all instances warrant the imputation of
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: knowledge to the prosecutor. Declining to infer the prosecutor's knowledge
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: simply because some other government agents knew that or knew
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: about certain evidence where prosecutors were unaware of documents possessed
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: by FBI agents uninvolved in the investigation of trial or
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: the defendant. United States v. Quinn, Second Circuit, 1971. All right,
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up right there. And in the
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: next episode, we're going to pick up with Claim 3,
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: Constructive Amendment of the S2 Indictment. All the information that
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.