Ghislaine Maxwell Conviction Affirmed

Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal conviction has been affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

On appeal, the questions presented are (1) whether Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”) barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (“USAO-SDNY”); (2) whether Maxwell’s second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the “Indictment”) complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and (5) whether Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.

We hold that Epstein’s NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold that Maxwell’s Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as 18 U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for offenses committed before the date of the statute’s enactment. We further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror’s erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that the District Court’s response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment. Lastly, we hold that Maxwell’s sentence is procedurally reasonable.

Epstein NDA did not bind New York federal prosector

Since 1789, while the number of federal districts has grown significantly, the duties of a U.S. Attorney and their scope remain largely unchanged. By statute, U.S. Attorneys, “within [their] district, shall (1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States; (2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned.” Again, the scope of the duties of a U.S. Attorney is cabined to their specific district unless otherwise directed.

In short, Annabi controls the result here. Nothing in the text of the NPA or its negotiation history suggests that the NPA precluded USAO-SDNY from prosecuting Maxwell for the charges in the Indictment. The District Court therefore correctly denied Maxwell’s motion without an evidentiary hearing.

New trial motion based on juror non-disclosure of childhood abuse

Maxwell contends that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury because Juror 50 failed to accurately respond to several questions related to his history of sexual abuse as part of the jury questionnaire during jury selection. Following a special evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Maxwell’s motion for a new trial.

We review a District Court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. We have been extremely reluctant to “haul jurors in after they have reached a verdict in order to probe for potential instances of bias, misconduct or extraneous influences.” While courts can “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a), they should do so “sparingly” and only in “the most extraordinary circumstances.” A district court “has broad discretion to decide Rule 33 motions based upon its evaluation of the proof produced” and is shown deference on appeal.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion. (Mike Frisch)