Ghislaine Maxwell Appeals Sex-Trafficking Convictions to Supreme Court

The former Jeffrey Epstein accomplice argues that a federal appeals court misapplied the law.
Ghislaine Maxwell Appeals Sex-Trafficking Convictions to Supreme Court
Ghislaine Maxwell, longtime associate of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, speaks at a news conference at the United Nations in New York on June 25, 2013. UNTV via Reuters
Matthew Vadum
Updated:
0:00

British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell asked the U.S. Supreme Court on April 11 to set aside her sex-trafficking convictions.

In the petition, Maxwell argues that a non-prosecution agreement that prosecutors made with her partner, the late Jeffrey Epstein, should have prevented her from being prosecuted.

In 2019, Epstein was indicted on multiple charges of sex trafficking and conspiracy. He died by suicide in August 2019, according to official reports.

In December 2021, Maxwell was convicted in New York on five counts of sex trafficking, including conspiracy to traffic minors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed her appeal in September 2024. A rehearing was denied in November 2024.

“Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein,” the petition said.

In September 2007, Epstein entered into a plea agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida. In exchange for pleading guilty to state charges, an 18-month sentence, and consenting to be sued by victims, the federal government agreed not to prosecute Epstein for various alleged offenses from 2001 to 2007 that were under investigation, the petition said.

The federal government also agreed “it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals].”

The non-prosecution agreement explicitly stated that it was not binding on the State Attorney’s office in Florida but “contained no such recitation setting forth that it was not binding on other United States Attorney’s offices,” the petition said.

“Relying on the [agreement], Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida state court on June 30, 2008, and fulfilled all his obligations under the [agreement].”

In July 2019, Epstein was indicted in federal court in New York for sex trafficking and conspiracy pertaining to conduct in New York and Florida between 2003 and 2005. The agreement was not an obstacle to the new charges because it only covered charges brought in Florida. Epstein died behind bars on Aug. 10, 2019, the petition said.

A year later, Maxwell was indicted in federal court in New York for allegedly serving as Epstein’s co-conspirator, “on charges that were the same as had been brought against Epstein.” Initially, she was charged with crimes allegedly committed in the 1994 to 1997 period, “presumably in an effort to circumvent the time frame covered by the [agreement],” the petition said.

On March 29, 2021, the federal government charged Maxwell with sex trafficking for “conduct and offenses wholly within the timeframe and subject matter covered by the [agreement].” These new allegations against Maxwell were “part of those for which Epstein pleaded guilty and paid restitution, in exchange (in part) for his co-conspirators to be immune from prosecution.”

Maxwell filed a motion to dismiss based on the wording of the agreement, and a federal district court denied the motion. The court determined that Maxwell benefitted from the agreement but held it did not confer immunity on her in New York. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years of incarceration, the petition said.

The Second Circuit rejected Maxwell’s argument that the agreement precluded her prosecution.

The petition argued that the only reason Maxwell’s motion to dismiss was denied was because it was made in the Second Circuit, which interprets “the enforceability of a promise made by the ‘United States’” differently than other regional circuit courts.

The petition said the motion would have been granted “if she had been charged in at least four other circuits (plus the Eleventh, where Epstein’s agreement was entered into).”

The Supreme Court should address “this inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places,” the petition said.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will take action on the petition.

Matt McGregor contributed to this report.