← Back to home

Document 22-14226

AI Analysis

Summary: The document is an appellate court decision affirming Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and sentence. The court held that the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar Maxwell's prosecution. The court also found that Maxwell's sentence was procedurally reasonable.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the appellate court's reasoning in affirming Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and sentence, and provides insight into the court's interpretation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the US Attorney's Office.
Key Topics: Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal of her conviction The Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida The impact of Juror 50's testimony on Maxwell's motion for a new trial
Key People:
  • Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant-Appellant
  • Jeffrey Epstein - Co-conspirator
  • Juror 50 - Juror whose testimony was scrutinized during Maxwell's trial
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
September 11, 2022
Pages
3
Folder
IMAGES008

Full Text

Case 22-14226, Document 1109-11 09/11/2022 2435636389.17Pg 525 of 526 Indictment. Lastly, we hold that Maxwell's sentence is procedurally reasonable. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. I. BACKGROUND 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell coordinated, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of women and underage girls. Starting in 1994, Maxwell groomed numerous young women to engage in sexual activity with Epstein by building friendships with these young women, gradually normalizing discussions of sexual topics and sexual abuse. Until about 2004, this pattern of sexual abuse continued as Maxwell provided Epstein access to underage girls in various locations in the United States. 1. Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement In September 2007, following state and federal investigations into allegations of Epstein's unlawful sexual activity, Epstein entered into an NPA with USAO-SDFL. In the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida 1 Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the evidence presented at trial and described in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Litwok, 678 F.3d 208, 210-11 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Because this is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial, the [ ] facts are drawn from the trial evidence and described in the light most favorable to the Government.") 5 DOJ-OGR-00021852 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-14226, Document: 1109-11 09/11/2022 24356838.817 Page: 8 of 526 assault.8 Upon learning of the interviews, the Government filed a letter on January 5, 2022, requesting a hearing; Maxwell then moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. On March 8, 2022, the District Court held a hearing and Juror 50 testified –under grant of immunity– that his answers to three questions related to sexual abuse in the jury questionnaire were not accurate but that the answers were an inadvertent mistake and that his experiences did not affect his ability to be fair and impartial. Finding Juror 50’s testimony to be credible, the District Court denied Maxwell’s motion for a new trial in a written order. Maxwell was subsequently sentenced to a term of 240 months’ imprisonment to be followed by five years’ supervised release, and the 8 Question 2 asked “[h]ave you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?” Question 48 asked “[h]ave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)” Finally, Question 49 asked [h]ave you or a friend or family member ever been accused of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes both formal accusations in a court of law or informal accusations in a social or work setting of actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member. See A-299, A-310. 8 DOJ-OGR-00021855 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 22-14226, Document 1109-11, 09/11/2022, 24353638, Page 9 of 526 District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION 1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell's arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.9 In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which "the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein."10 We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY. It is well established in our Circuit that "[a] plea agreement 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 9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). 10 A-178. DOJ-OGR-00021856

Individual Pages

Page 5 - DOJ-OGR-00021852
Case 22-14226, Document 1109-11 09/11/2022 2435636389.17Pg 525 of 526 Indictment. Lastly, we hold that Maxwell's sentence is procedurally reasonable. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. I. BACKGROUND 1 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell coordinated, facilitated, and contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of women and underage girls. Starting in 1994, Maxwell groomed numerous young women to engage in sexual activity with Epstein by building friendships with these young women, gradually normalizing discussions of sexual topics and sexual abuse. Until about 2004, this pattern of sexual abuse continued as Maxwell provided Epstein access to underage girls in various locations in the United States. 1. Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement In September 2007, following state and federal investigations into allegations of Epstein's unlawful sexual activity, Epstein entered into an NPA with USAO-SDFL. In the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida 1 Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the evidence presented at trial and described in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Litwok, 678 F.3d 208, 210-11 (2d Cir. 2012) ("Because this is an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial, the [ ] facts are drawn from the trial evidence and described in the light most favorable to the Government.") 5 DOJ-OGR-00021852
Page 8 - DOJ-OGR-00021855
Case 22-14226, Document: 1109-11 09/11/2022 24356838.817 Page: 8 of 526 assault.8 Upon learning of the interviews, the Government filed a letter on January 5, 2022, requesting a hearing; Maxwell then moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. On March 8, 2022, the District Court held a hearing and Juror 50 testified –under grant of immunity– that his answers to three questions related to sexual abuse in the jury questionnaire were not accurate but that the answers were an inadvertent mistake and that his experiences did not affect his ability to be fair and impartial. Finding Juror 50’s testimony to be credible, the District Court denied Maxwell’s motion for a new trial in a written order. Maxwell was subsequently sentenced to a term of 240 months’ imprisonment to be followed by five years’ supervised release, and the 8 Question 2 asked “[h]ave you, or any of your relatives or close friends, ever been a victim of a crime?” Question 48 asked “[h]ave you or a friend or family member ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member.)” Finally, Question 49 asked [h]ave you or a friend or family member ever been accused of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, or sexual assault? (This includes both formal accusations in a court of law or informal accusations in a social or work setting of actual or attempted sexual assault or other unwanted sexual advance, including by a stranger, acquaintance, supervisor, teacher, or family member. See A-299, A-310. 8 DOJ-OGR-00021855
Page 9 - DOJ-OGR-00021856
Case 22-14226, Document 1109-11, 09/11/2022, 24353638, Page 9 of 526 District Court imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION 1. The NPA Between Epstein and USAO-SDFL Did Not Bar Maxwell's Prosecution by USAO-SDNY Maxwell sought dismissal of the charges in the Indictment on the grounds that the NPA made between Epstein and USAO-SDFL immunized her from prosecution on all counts as a third-party beneficiary of the NPA. The District Court denied the motion, rejecting Maxwell's arguments. We agree. We review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.9 In arguing that the NPA barred her prosecution by USAO-SDNY, Maxwell cites the portion of the NPA in which "the United States [ ] agree[d] that it w[ould] not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein."10 We hold that the NPA with USAO-SDFL does not bind USAO-SDNY. It is well established in our Circuit that "[a] plea agreement 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 9 See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). 10 A-178. DOJ-OGR-00021856