On Wednesday, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a habeas petition in Manhattan federal court seeking to overturn her 2021 sex‑trafficking conviction, arguing that new evidence and constitutional violations undermined her trial.
Maxwell’s Habeas Petition
In the petition, Maxwell claimed that “substantial new evidence” has emerged proving that constitutional violations spoiled her trial. She maintained that information that would have exonerated her at her 2021 trial was withheld and that false testimony was presented to the jury. Maxwell said the cumulative effect of the constitutional violations resulted in a “complete miscarriage of justice.” The filing stated: “Since the conclusion of her trial, substantial new evidence has emerged from related civil actions, Government disclosures, investigative reports, and documents demonstrating constitutional violations that undermined the fairness of her proceeding. In the light of the full evidentiary record, no reasonable juror would have convicted her.”
Background of Maxwell and Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein, a millionaire financier, was arrested in July 2019 on sex‑trafficking charges. A month later, he was found dead in his cell at a New York federal jail and the death was ruled a suicide. Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite, was arrested a year later and was convicted of sex‑trafficking in December 2021. After her conviction, she was interviewed by the Justice Department’s second‑in‑command in July and was soon afterward moved from a federal prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act
President Donald Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act after months of public and political pressure. The law requires the Justice Department to provide the public with Epstein‑related records by Dec. 19. Forced to act by the new transparency law, the Justice Department announced it plans to release 18 categories of investigative materials gathered in the massive sex‑trafficking probe. The categories include search warrants, financial records, notes from interviews with victims, and data from electronic devices.
The filing came just two days before records in Maxwell’s case were scheduled to be released publicly. The timing underscores the growing demand for transparency surrounding the Epstein investigation.
Judge Engelmayer’s Decision
Last week, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in Manhattan granted the Justice Department’s request to publicly release the materials. Engelmayer, who had previously rejected unsealing requests before the transparency law, said the materials “do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor.”
On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said during a news conference on another topic that he would follow the law and the judge’s orders pertaining to the records.
Attorney David Markus’s Comments
After the Justice Department asked a New York federal judge to permit grand jury and discovery materials gathered prior to Maxwell’s trial to be released publicly, attorney David Markus wrote on her behalf that while Maxwell now “does not take a position” on unsealing documents from her case, doing so “would create undue prejudice so severe that it would foreclose the possibility of a fair retrial” if her habeas petition succeeds. Markus added that the records “contain untested and unproven allegations.”
Political Context
President Donald Trump was asked about a possible pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell after the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of her criminal conviction. The question of a pardon has been a point of contention for Trump supporters and critics alike, but no action has been taken.
Key Takeaways
- Maxwell’s habeas petition cites new evidence and constitutional violations that she claims undermined her 2021 conviction.
- The Justice Department is releasing 18 categories of Epstein‑related records under the Transparency Act, scheduled for Dec. 19.
- Judge Engelmayer has approved the release of the materials, noting they do not identify anyone else with a minor.
The legal battle over Maxwell’s conviction continues as new evidence surfaces and public scrutiny of the Epstein investigation intensifies. The forthcoming release of records may provide further context for Maxwell’s claims and for the broader inquiry into Epstein’s network.
