Maxwell’s Conviction Stands After Appeal 

United States: A US appeal court has denied ex-British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell’s motion to reconsider its decision affirming her conviction for facilitating the sexual abuse of underage girls by the now deceased, Jeffrey Epstein. 

A three-judge panel on Sept. 17 dismissed several reasons to overturn her 2021 conviction. 

Supreme Court Appeal Planned 

Maxwell, 62, intends to take the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which doesn’t have to entertain her suit. She is in a low-security women’s federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida and her prison number shows she is in for a long haul to be released in July 2037 provided she does not get a parole before the stipulated time, as reported by Reuters. 

Ghislaine Maxwell's bid to have her sex trafficking conviction appeal reconsidered has been rejected by a US court.

The disgraced British socialite is currently serving a 20 year jail term at FCI Tallahassee for pimping girls for paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

The 62-year-old had… pic.twitter.com/VqEoisaiAe

— Jevaughn (@Jevaughn_Brown) November 26, 2024

Conviction Upheld Despite Legal Challenges 

Arthur Aidala ‘s lawyer of Maxwell, in an email, said that he was disheartened by the ruling made on Monday. Hence, he is cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court would consider her appeal. 

She was convicted of five counts of recruiting and preparing underage girls for sexual abuse by Epstein, her boyfriend, between 1994 and 2004. 

Gaining her conviction, the appeals court quoted the findings of the trial judge to the effect that Maxwell was instrumental in procuring abuse that inflicted what was described as significant and lasting harm. 

Defense Cites Conflicting Legal Precedents 

It also dismissed Maxwell’s argument that Epstein’s no-prosecution deal that he signed with federal prosecutors in southern Florida in 2007 on behalf of Epstein culminated in his pleading guilty to state prostitution charges in 2008, provided immunity to her from prosecution in New York. 

When petitioning for en banc rehearing, Maxwell’s counsel argued that the 2nd Circuit should overrule that decision and instead adopt the rule stated in Ruman that plea agreements only restrained United States Attorneys in districts where they were made, unless it seemed that more extensive restrictions were contemplated, as reported by Reuters. 

The lawyers said that the ruling was in contrast with the other federal appeals courts and is ‘in tension’ with the two Supreme Court rulings in plea and immunity agreements.