In a significant legal development, Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney has renewed his request for the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 in New York for her role in recruiting and grooming multiple teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse, which spanned over a decade. The attorney, David Oscar Markus, emphasizes that a non-prosecution agreement made by Epstein with federal prosecutors in Florida should also apply to Maxwell’s case in New York as well as other jurisdictions across the United States.
In his recent filing, Markus reiterated previous arguments that have been made regarding the applicability of the non-prosecution agreement. He contends that this agreement should not be limited to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Florida but should extend to federal prosecutors nationwide. However, there were no new revelations regarding Maxwell's recent two-day meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, which took place last week.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a response urging the Supreme Court not to consider Maxwell’s case. Markus's latest filing addresses the government’s arguments and aims to strengthen his position as the case awaits the Supreme Court’s attention.
Markus filed a request for the Supreme Court to take on Maxwell's case back in April. He argues that there is a notable disagreement among federal courts regarding whether non-prosecution agreements only benefit the specific U.S. Attorney’s office that signs them or if they can be applied more broadly. The Supreme Court, currently on summer recess, is not expected to take any action on Maxwell’s case for several months.
Federal prosecutors maintain that the non-prosecution agreement only applies within southern Florida, where it was originally established. Judge Alison Nathan, who presided over Maxwell’s 2021 trial, also agreed with this interpretation. In her ruling, Nathan noted that a review by the Justice Department found no special assurances were given to Maxwell regarding her prosecution outside of South Florida.
Markus argues that Maxwell did receive assurances contrary to the government’s claims. He stated, “This case is about what the government promised, not what Epstein did.” He also emphasized that plea agreements should be interpreted strictly against the government, arguing that they should not have the freedom to reinterpret prior agreements to suit their needs.
Furthermore, Judge Nathan pointed out in her ruling that the Florida non-prosecution agreement covered Epstein’s criminal activities from 2001 to 2007, while Maxwell was prosecuted for actions that took place between 1994 and 1997. This timeline discrepancy adds another layer to the legal arguments being made in her defense.
In a bold move, Markus is not only appealing to the Supreme Court but has also reached out to former President Donald Trump for assistance in Maxwell’s case. He suggested that the Supreme Court could potentially overturn her conviction and mandate a new federal trial. Additionally, he mentioned that Trump could consider commuting Maxwell’s sentence or even issuing a pardon.
Markus stated, “President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal,” asserting that Trump would likely agree that the U.S. government must uphold its promises. He continues to advocate for Maxwell, arguing that it is profoundly unjust to hold her accountable for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government had allegedly promised she would not face prosecution.
