Federal Judge to Ghislaine Maxwell: Thanks for Proving the Jury’s Point

When you have nothing to lose, you roll the dice and hope to get lucky. That rarely works out in casinos, nor does it succeed much in appeals of criminal convictions. But when all you have is money and time, like Ghislaine Maxwell, it doesn’t hurt to give it a try.

Jeffrey Epstein’s wingwoman tried to appeal her conviction and 20-year sentence in federal court, claiming procedural errors in the trial and purportedly new evidence that might exculpate her. US District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer shot down the appeal today in a 67-page decision, essentially thanking Maxwell for confirming the verdict with the new evidence:

The judge said claims raised by Maxwell were “meritless” and “frivolous.”

“The vast majority are procedurally barred — either because Maxwell made and lost the same arguments on direct appeal, or because she could have made such arguments on appeal but elected not to do so,” he wrote. 

Engelmayer said that new evidence that Maxwell raised in her petition, including recently released documents from the federal investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, “incriminates her or reinforces the correctness of the legal rulings Maxwell challenges.” The judge called her filing “lengthy and rambling.”

Well, when you live at the Texas chapter of Club Fed and don’t have much to do, you can spend your time crafting lengthy and rambling motions and court filings. Perhaps Maxwell doesn’t like knitting, but at least at the end of a lengthy and rambling craft project, you end up with a sweater or blanket. 

Some may be surprised to hear about this appeal. Maxwell lost a previous appeal at the Supreme Court last year, which CBS News notes was not a comprehensive appeal but one focused on the non-prosecution agreement offered and accepted by Epstein. The court didn’t comment on its refusal to grant cert, but lower courts ruled that Maxwell was not a party to that agreement, and that the agreement didn’t restrict another jurisdiction from pursuing any crimes that fell within its own ambit. The 2nd Circuit made that latter point explicitly, which would have also doomed Epstein’s chances for appeal had he not committed suicide before trial. 

Englemayer reaffirms the 2nd Circuit reasoning on the non-prosecution agreement, while noting that the Supreme Court made it clear that this was a dead end:

On September 17, 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed. Under United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), it held, it is “well established” in this Circuit that a plea agreement, including one executed outside the Circuit, “binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.” Maxwell, 118 F.4th at 263 (quoting Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672). And “nothing in the NPA” showed that it was intended to bind districts other than the SDFL; to the contrary, its scope was “expressly limited” to that district. Id. (emphasis in original). The NPA’s “negotiation history,” consistent with its text, likewise indicated that the agreement was not intended to bind other districts. Id. at 264 (quoting the then-operative United States Attorney’s Manual as prohibiting non-prosecution agreements that purported to bind other districts absent express written approval by certain officials, which were indisputably not granted as to the 2007 Epstein NPA). Annabi thus “control[led] the result.” Id. at 265. The Circuit affirmed the denial of Maxwell’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. Id. …

Assessment: This claim has been rejected by the Circuit (and by Judge Nathan, twice), and the Supreme Court has declined to review the denial of that claim. Maxwell does not argue there has been any “intervening change in the law” that might exonerate her. Chin, 622 F.2d at 1092. There is none. This claim is thus procedurally barred. See Pitcher, 559 F.3d at 123; Sanin, 252 F.3d at 83; Mui, 614 F.3d at 53.

Maxwell’s attempt to chew previously digested legal cud did not end there. She also appealed on the basis of a juror having failed to disclose prior sexual abuse, which Maxwell raised on a previous appeal. Englemayer stomped that out in some depth:

Assessment: The claim in Maxwell’s § 2255 petition of misconduct by Juror 50 is squarely barred by the mandate rule. See Pitcher, 559 F.3d at 123; Sanin, 252 F.3d at 83; Mui, 614 F.3d at 53. The Second Circuit conclusively rejected this claim. It affirmed Judge Nathan’s careful, comprehensive, and fact-based determination that Juror 50 had been fair and impartial. And Maxwell does not make any argument that there has been an intervening change in the law in this area—much less one that might assist her—since the Circuit’s decision. See Chin, 622 F.2d at 1092.

Attempting to circumvent the mandate rule, Maxwell claims that “[n]ew reporting” “establishes actual bias” by Juror 50, undermining the ruling. Pet. at 2–3. She cites six exhibits as ostensibly impeaching Juror 50’s hearing testimony. See Pet. Exs. 3–8. These exhibits are non-events. They largely consist of items such as podcasts or news articles available to Maxwell during the post-trial litigation concerning Juror 50. To the extent they post-date that litigation, they do not contain any new information supporting Maxwell’s bid for relief. On the contrary, these support the conclusion reached by Judge Nathan and the Second Circuit: that Juror 50 served fairly and impartially.

Englemayer also notes that a challenge to the indictment was likewise heard and rejected:

Maxwell’s petition next, briefly, claims that Counts Three and Four of the S2 Indictment were constructively amended, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Grand Jury Clause, with respect to the victim referred to as “Jane.” Pet. at 38–40; Pet. Supp. at 12–16. That claim reiterates an argument which Judge Nathan and the Second Circuit rejected. And Maxwell’s petition does not cite any new information in support of it.

Basically, all of Maxwell’s claims have already been adjudicated and found irrelevant. Englemayer makes his displeasure at the waste of court time this appeal represents in his conclusion:

For the reasons above, the Court denies Maxwell’s petition for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Maxwell has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, and appellate review is therefore not warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005).

The Court certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith; in forma pauperis status is thus denied for purposes of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)

The reference to Coppedge is significant. It denies Maxwell any public funds to make further appeals, based on the finding of bad faith in this present legal action. That does not mean Maxwell can’t file more appeals, but she can’t claim indigency and get public legal assistance to do so. That is Englemayer’s strongest statement on the nonsense Maxwell attempted to regurgitate in this appeal, and perhaps the end of it. Maxwell had better put her efforts into a pardon or commutation instead, although she probably has the same chances there as she did with this appeal. When all you have is time, though …

Editor’s Note: The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s law and order agenda.

Help us fight back against the Democrats and Soros-backed DAs that refuse to enforce our laws to hold criminals accountable. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.