Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 6) (9/29/26)

Transcript

Judge Engelmayer Denies Ghislaine Maxwell's Attempt To Overturn Her Conviction (Part 6) (9/29/26) · 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: with Judge Engelmeyer's order denying Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to get
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: her conviction overturned. Assessment. Maxwell concedes that she previously and
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: unsuccessfully argued before trial that plaintiff's lawyers had colluded with
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: the government to cause SDNY USAO to open the Epstein
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: investigation and later charge Maxwell with perjury. Maxwell's appellate counsel, however,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: did not pursue that claim in her direct appeal. Having
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: abandoned this point, Maxwell cannot pursue it under Section 2255
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: unless she shows cause for having failed to do so,
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: and prejudice from an asserted error. She has not shown either.
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: As to cause, Maxwell appears to imply that supporting information
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: surfaced only after she litigated her direct appeal. That is wrong,
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: for multiple reasons. First, many exhibits she cites as reflecting
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: new information long predate her February 28, 2023, opening brief
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: on direct appeal. CEG, Example 15, book published July 20, 2021.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: Government's brief filed April 16, 2021, opposing Maxwell's pretrial motion
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: to dismiss the indictment. Second, Maxwell grossly mischaracterizes the contents
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: of these exhibits. She cites, for example, an exhibit entitled,
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: as showing that a lawyer for victims admitted he was
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: working covertly with the SDNY, and happy to let a
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: journalist take credit for having started the new investigation into
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: Epstein so the lawyer's hands could stay clean. In fact,
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: the exhibit consists of three excerpted pages from the lawyer's book.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: These do not mention SDNY or the inception of its
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: investigation into Epstein and Maxwell. Third, the cited exhibits, on
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: their own terms, do not come close to supporting Maxwell's
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: rhetorical claim that victims' lawyers usurped the role of federal prosecutors.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Petition Support Excerpt 12 Email between Maxwell's defense counsel and
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: the prosecution team, in which defense counsel inquired whether a
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: certain lawyer represented any witnesses in the case, to which
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: the government counsel responded that the lawyer did not represent
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: any witness the government intended to call a trial. There
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: is no factual support, old or new, for that claim.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: nor has Maxwell shown that she suffered any prejudice, actual
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: and substantial disadvantage infecting her entire trial with error of
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: constitutional dimensions from the government's communication with counsel for the
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: minors she and Epstein abused. The government acted appropriately when
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: it heard out victims, including through their counsel, and prepared
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: them for the emotionally difficult process of testifying at trial. Indeed,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 expressly affords victims
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: qualified rights to confer with the government counsel about their case,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: to be reasonably protected from the accused, and to be
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: reasonably heard at any public proceeding. That Maxwell rues that
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: these victims bore witness about their sexual abuse at her
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: and Epstein's hands does not make the quotidian collaboration that
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: occurred between their counsel and federal prosecutors improper. Her claim
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: that information held by these lawyers and not the prosecutors
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: was required to be disclosed under Brady's likewise fails. Prosecutors
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: can furl with the receipt of information from witnesses, victims,
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: and other private actors directly or through their counsel. It
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: is commonplace in the building of a criminal case and
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: the preparation for a criminal trial. It does not transform
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: such persons into members of the prosecution team. Second Circuit
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: has never held that the prosecution team includes cooperating witnesses,
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: interacting with the prosecution team without more does not make
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: someone a team member. Here, victims' counsel did not participate
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: in government's interviews with other victims. They did not develop
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: the prosecution's investigative or trial strategy. They did not conduct
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: any joint investigation with the SDNY, USAO. They were not
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: involved in the grand jury proceedings that yielded the indictments
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: against Epstein and Maxwell. Maxwell's claim to the contrary lacks
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: a basis in fact or law. This claim is thus
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: barred and meritless. Claim 5. Selective Prosecution Maxwell next claims
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: that she was selectively prosecuted. She argues that the government
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: could have indicted the four co-conspirators named in the 2007
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Epstein NPA were 25 men who entered into settlements with victims,
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: but that after Epstein's death, it chose to indict only
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: her as a scapegoat. This claim is procedurally barred. Maxwell
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: could have, but did not, pursue this argument on direct
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: appeal or before Judge Nathan. she doesn't cite any cause
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: for or establish any prejudice from her failure to do so.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: On the contrary, on the merits, this claim is patently frivolous.
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors have broad discretion to enforce the nation's criminal laws.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: The presumption of regularity applies to prosecutorial decisions, and in
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: that federal prosecutors have properly discharged their official duties. So
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: whether or not to prosecute and what charge to file
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: or bring before a grand jury generally rests entirely in
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: his discretion. To establish that she was selectively prosecuted, a
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: defendant must deduce clear evidence that the decision the prosecutor 1.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: had a discriminatory effect and 2. was motivated by a
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: discriminatory purpose. Discriminatory effect requires that the defendant show that
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: others similarly situated were not prosecuted, such that the defendant
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: was singled out. Discriminatory purpose means that the government's decision
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: to prosecute the defendant was insidious or in bad faith, i.e.,
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion, or the
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: desire to prevent her to exercise her constitutional rights. Maxwell
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: is not shown either. As Judge Nathan summarized the trial
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: evidence at sentencing, it established that Maxwell participated directly and
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: repeatedly and over the course of many years in a
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: horrific scheme to entice, transport, and traffic underage girls, some
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: as young as 14, for sexual abuse by and with Epstein.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: Maxwell served for years as Epstein's indispensable recruiter and groomer-in-chief.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: She does not point to any other person who abetted
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: Epstein in this matter or to this degree. This is
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: fatal to Maxwell's claim of selective prosecution, because she has
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: not identified, and cannot identify, any offense participants similarly situated
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: to her. On the contrary, Maxwell has not implicated any
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: other person in the child sex abuse scheme. Strikingly, her
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Section 2255 petition and its supplements do not even concede
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Epstein's culpability in that scheme. And for all of the
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: EFTA records that Maxwell invokes as purported support for her
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: petition claims, she doesn't cite any that reveal the existence
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: of an uncharged Confederate, let alone one as instrumental as she,
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: in facilitating Epstein's horrific crimes. Maxwell also has not shown
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: that the government's decision to prosecute her was based on
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: any impermissible consideration. The opposite is emphatically true. As the
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: trial showed, the case against Maxwell was based on abundant
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: admissible evidence, establishing her knowing participation in enabling a notorious
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: child sex abuser to carry out historically heinous crimes. Far
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: from being discriminatory or unjust, this was the epitome of
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: a virtuous prosecution. The government and the jury justly held
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: Maxwell accountable for gravely serious federal offenses. 3. Claim 6.
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: Inaccurate Financial Evidence Maxwell claims the prosecution at trial presented
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: inaccurate evidence that gave the jury a false impression that
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: she had profited from her conspiracy with Epstein. This claim, too,
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: is procedurally barred and baseless. Relevant Background At trial, the
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: government offered seven bank records from J.P. Morgan authenticated by
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: a custodial witness. The witness testified that he had not
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: had any personal involvement with the accounts or transactions reflected
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: in in the JPMC, exhibits, or ever interacted with Maxwell
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: or Epstein. Maxwell's counsel cross-examined the witness at length. In summation,
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: the government argued that the bank records supported that between
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: 1999 and 2007, Epstein had given Maxwell some $ 30 million.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: Assessment Maxwell argues that unspecified charts presented by the government
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: at trial missed data transfers and omitted exculpatory notation showing
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: repayment or gifts. She argues that the government referred to
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: GX 1453 as an FBI summary, reflecting Maxwell's account ledger,
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: whereas this document was actually created by an unidentified third-party
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: civil counsel. She argues that the testimony by any unspecified
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: witness that she co-owned Epstein's properties and private jet was untrue.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: Maxwell did not pursue any challenge along these lines on appeal,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: barring this 2255 claim. In any event, Maxwell's depiction of
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: trial is fictitious. The government did not present the supposed
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: financial summary charts at trial. The words FBI summary and
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: ledger do not appear anywhere in the trial transcript, and
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: there was no GX 1453 or any like exhibit or
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: series of exhibits that might encompass that purported document. And Maxwell,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: after the government so noted in its response to her petition,
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: did not counter this point. As to Epstein's residences, there
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: was no testimony that Maxwell co-owned any of these. The
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: government instead argued to the jury that Epstein, not Maxwell,
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: owned the properties and that Maxwell, as Epstein's right hand,
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: benefited from his luxury lifestyle. Transcript at 2848 arguing in
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: summation that Maxwell had spent her weeks flying around on
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: Epstein's private jet, from his mansion on the Upper East Side,
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: to his ranch in New Mexico, to his villa in
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: Palm Beach, to his apartment in Paris, and to his
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. That argument was
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: conclusively supported by trial testimony of multiple witnesses and by
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: documentary evidence including flight logs. As to the private jet,
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: there was... unrebutted trial testimony by Larry Vesosky, Epstein's pilot,
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: between 1991 and 2019, that Maxwell had been on a
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: lot of flights, owned a quarter share of Epstein's private aircraft,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: and told them it was her jet. On the last point,
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: Vesosky added, in fact, it was her jet, because she
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: was partial owner of the jet, and she had access
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: to it with notice. In sum, Maxwell's claim that the
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: jury was presented with false evidence, her argument is barred
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: and frivolous. All right, folks, we're going to wrap up
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: right here. And in the next episode, we're going to
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: pick up with four. Claim seven, delayed prosecution. All the
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: the description box.