Law&Crime Sidebar - Jeffrey Epstein Madam Ghislaine Maxwell Wants Sex Trafficking Conviction Overturned

Episode Date: March 13, 2024

Lawyers for Ghislaine Maxwell, the woman serving 20 years in prison for her involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s complicated sex trafficking scheme, want her conviction thrown out. The attorneys are relying on an argument that Maxwell is protected by an agreement made decades ago. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks it all down with former CIA and FBI special agent Tracy Walder.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’ve suffered an injury and need legal support click www.attorneytom.com/Sidebar for a FREE consultation or dial 855-TOM-WINS.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Sex trafficker and former Jeffrey Epstein associate Galane Maxwell has appealed her case and says her conviction should be thrown out. It's an interesting series of legal arguments that will break down with former CIA and FBI agent Tracy Walder. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Galane Maxwell, a former associate, madam, accomplice, girlfriend of the deceased financier

and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has filed her appeal and has asked a court to throw out her convictions on sex trafficking charges. There is a lot to break down here. So, as we know, Glane Maxwell was convicted. in 2021, a federal jury of five charges related to procuring girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse for years. Multiple victims testified that Maxwell also participated in the abuse herself, and Maxwell was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison. Well, now, her attorneys argue that she is merely being punished as a, quote, proxy for Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy, quote, the public

outrage, especially since Epstein can no longer be prosecuted. After all, he famously died in his jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on his own sex trafficking charges, and one of her main defense arguments, something that has been brought up by her legal team, and it's an interesting legal argument, it centers around a very controversial non-prosecution agreement that Jeffrey Epstein had entered into back in 2008. You see, Epstein was being investigated by both federal and state authorities when he entered into this deal. And the deal was, he agrees to plead guilty in Florida to the state charge of soliciting prostitution of a minor and serves 18 months in jail.

He ended up only serving about 13 months, spent a large portion of his days outside of jail on a work release program. And in exchange for doing that, prosecutors would not charge him with more serious federal crimes. And the agreement also said that the U.S. Attorney's Office

for the Southern District of Florida would agree to not bring any criminal charges against any of Epstein's potential co-conspirators. Well, Maxwell says, there you go, right there, I'm covered. The trial court in her case did not agree. They said the agreement does not bind New York prosecutors, and it doesn't cover the conduct that she was charged for.

The question now is, will the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagree? They are the higher court, because Maxwell's attorneys argued in front of a three-judge panel of this appellate court this week. In fact, defense attorney Diana Fabby Samson argued to this court, quote, the plea agreement applies to preclude this prosecution. Denying the viability of this plea agreement strikes a dagger in the heart of the trust between the government and its citizens regarding plea agreements. Well, for that and more, let me bring on Tracy Walder, former CIA and FBI agent, News Nation

National Security contributor, and author of The Unexpected Spy. Tracy, so good to see you. Thanks for coming on. Thank you for having me, Jesse. I'm curious to your opinion on this, because it seems it's so hard to judge what a court is going to do based on their comments, but it seems like the court may not be persuaded by Maxwell's arguments. In fact, circuit judge Richard Wesley said that he said that.

he read the U.S. Department of Justice's manual about non-prosecution agreements, and he said, quote, it created a strong presumption that New York prosecutors were not barred from going after Maxwell, even telling defense attorney Samson that the manual suggests the opposite of what you just said. What's your take? So I read the exact same saying, actually, that you did. So in my opinion, I don't believe that this is going to be granted. And I don't believe that this is an appropriate argument for her to make because it sounds to me that that non-prosecutorial agreement was really bound by the Southern District of Florida, not New York, where, you know, she was tried and convicted of these crimes. Also, that agreement really talked about conspirators, right? Any of his

conspirators wouldn't be prosecuted. But it sounds to me, based obviously on the charges that she was convicted of, that it's not necessarily conspiracy. Rather, she was an active participant. So I think there's kind of two things. One, I don't think that she's bound that agreement pertains to her. And two, I don't think the crimes that she committed are covered by that agreement. And I believe there was also a conversation that the time period of the crimes that we're talking about in Florida may not be the same that we're talking about here. I would say in a day and age, host Bill Cosby, when we're talking about promises that were made to a defendant and them essentially either pleading guilty or saying things that would incriminate themselves. and we know, you know, his case was thrown out because of it and he was released from prison.

I would, the argument that I think is interesting, did the government not make a promise here? Because if you go to the spirit of the deal, I would say, would Jeffrey Epstein have agreed to plead guilty? Would he even agree to any of this if he knew another prosecutor outside of Florida could go after him or his friends? It's a good point, right? That's not a bad, that's a bad argument, right? No, obviously, I'm processing that because I think it really, I don't think it's a bad point. But the way that I'm coming out it and the way that I'm looking at it here is we then have to operate under the auspices that Jeffrey Epstein cares about someone other than himself, right? And obviously I don't know him. Don't want to know him. Glad I don't know him. I don't believe that he does. So I don't know if he would have cared one way or another if other people could have been prosecuted. I believe he would have cared if himself was prosecuted. But I'm not so sure that he cares necessarily. about those other co-conspirators, just, in my opinion, based on his behavior that we've

seen. And Maxwell's legal brief, it went on to say, quote, in its zeal to pin the blame for its own incompetence and for Epstein's crimes on Maxwell, the government breached its promise not to prosecute Maxwell, charged her with time-barred offenses, resurrected, and recast decades-old allegations for conduct previously ascribed to Epstein and other named assistants, and joined forces with complainant civil attorneys whose interests were financial to develop new allegations that would support charges against Maxwell. And then there's an interesting part where, in the arguments that were heard this week,

Circuit Judge Jose Cabranas asked the prosecutors if anyone else was being investigated at the time this deal was made and was that someone that Florida prosecutors were thinking of that was going to be covered by this agreement. And Andrew Roerbach, who was prosecuted Maxwell, said no. So I thought that was really interesting there, that apparently, from his understanding that they weren't looking at other people out in Florida. So I guess my question then back to that and sorry to be rhetorical is if they weren't looking at other people, why was that included in my opinion as part of a deal? And also I think, you know, I don't mean to be blunt, I guess, about that point. But if that was truly the

case, then why is that, was that such an important part of that 2008 deal that you had mentioned before? And I also think, too, they're really trying to paint Maxwell into being a scapegoat, right, for Epstein. But the reality is that she's not. She's a criminal, too. She's been tried and she's been convicted of different crimes. Some similar, but some different than Epstein. And so it's getting, in my opinion, obviously we don't operate under a court of public opinion, but it's not a good look. And, you know, I watched an interview with her brother actually yesterday, saying that just like these victims are victims of sexual abuse, his sister is also the victim of abuse.

I find that pretty reprehensible, quite frankly, to say that, you know, to these victims of abuse. So I think we're sort of, it's just not a good look for her. And also he's sort of saying that they tampered with the jury pool because some of them had been victims of sexual abuse but didn't feel comfortable. It's just not a good look. Well, there's an interesting point that you make. Yes, in the eyes of the public opinion, in the eyes of a judge who would say, sentence her, you could say her arguments that she was a victim and that, you know, it wouldn't look good and it could hurt her.

But when you're talking about her appellate rights and you're talking about her legal rights to get a fair trial or whether she should have been prosecuted, we do have to separate it. Now, this is not saying that I feel any sort of sympathy for Gling Maxwell. No, I know you don't. But from an illegal point of view as an attorney, I think it's interesting. And you mentioned a good point because in her legal brief, her appellate brief, something that wasn't argued in front of this panel this week. specifically, was an interesting point about the women who testified against her. And these were

women who said that they were abused. And more specifically, that three out of the four at trial had used pseudonyms when testifying. Now, Galane Maxwell argued in her brief, quote, the result transformed the trial into a form of kabuki theater, designed to remind the jury at every turn that these adult women were being protected because their privacy interests and not Maxwell's constitutional right to a public trial were paramount. And then Maxwell, goes on to say that this was theater because right after the trial, one of those women did an interview with the Daily Mail under her real name, Carolyn Andriano. So I thought that was interesting that they're saying, you know, that prejudiced her because the jury's looking

at these women and saying, you know, they're so affected by what happened to them, they don't even want to use their real names. Then right after the trial, one of them comes out. So do you think that that's an interesting argument to put forward? I do think that that's an interesting argument. And you're right. She has constitutional rights, right? This is something that I talk about, you know, with a criminal justice students in college. Everyone does, whether you like that or not, right? And she does have rights, but at the same time, and she does have the right to face her accusers, right? We all know that.

And so maybe that's kind of the point that she's laying on there. But the reality is, is victims also have rights. And so whether the optics of that may look bad or look untoward isn't really for us to say, and in my opinion, really can't play into her legal argument because these crimes occurred when these women were girls, when they were underage. And so they do have a right to hide their names and to hide their identities, whether we agree with that or not, whether she agrees with that or not. So just like Maxwell has rights, so do these victims. And maybe, maybe, because I've seen in these cases sometimes, once they got to the stand and once they discussed the horrific abuse that they underwent, maybe they felt courageous to come forward. and courageous to share their names. We don't know how that, you know, proceeded after the trial. And so, in my opinion, I don't believe that that's a good argument because, you know,

she really did have a right to face them. It's just that their names were redacted. When I talk about all of these legal issues surrounding the Epstein case or any of the stories that we cover, I think it's fascinating. I'm a lawyer. I do. But I get it. It is complicated.

I understand that. And look, if you find yourself in a position where you need a lawyer, you not only need an attorney who could explain the law to you, but one that you can trust. And that is especially true in personal injury cases, which can be very difficult. That's why I want to highlight attorney, Tom, and associates are great sponsor of this episode of Sidebar. Whether you were hurt in a car accident, a refinery explosion, maybe got sick because of a drug or a toxic exposure, maybe you're the victim of securities fraud or a data breach. Attorney Tom can help. You see, Tom and his team, they have the legal knowledge. They have the legal skills. That's

a given, but they also care. They have genuine empathy for their client's situations. Tom and his team, they're there for you. Every call is free. It's private. You're going to be speaking with a member of his team straight away. And their track record is very impressive in these tough cases where it matters most. In times of turmoil, having somebody that you can trust is invaluable. And by the way, you won't pay a dime until you win, which just further shows their commitment to your success. And look, if your case maybe is not the best fit for attorney Tom and his team, don't worry. They still may have been able to recommend you a lawyer using their national network of attorneys. With Attorney Tom and his team, you're not just hiring a lawyer.

You are gaining a powerful ally who is committed to justice and your well-being. So if you've suffered an injury and you need legal support, click the attorney tom.com slash sidebar link pinned in the comments for a free consultation or dial 855, Tom wins. I will tell you, I think there is one issue that could have some success. And you mentioned it before. It was raised in the legal brief, not in the actual brief. arguments in court was that one of the jurors didn't reveal that he was a childhood sexual abuse survivor during jury selection. And he ended up saying that he made it inadvertent mistake. The trial judge accepted that in a hearing that was post-conviction. The problem is that

he allegedly talked about his background with the fellow jurors during deliberations. Curious your thoughts on that. You know, in my opinion, and again, it's hard to hear this stuff, right? Because hearing about sexual abuse or child predators, it's just a difficult thing. But I do think, in my opinion, the place where she might have a chance, per se, is on that. That's just my opinion. You can agree or disagree. But I do feel if that was not disclosed, that really can prejudice a jury.

And he could have prejudiced the entire jury by speaking about what he went through. What he went through was clearly horrific. But in my opinion, he should have probably been excused from, you know, the jury pool. And so in my opinion, that's the part that has. the most teeth in regards to her appellate argument. But again, folks may disagree with me. Well, going back full circle to the main argument that was argued this week about the non-prosecution agreement, as I mentioned, that was very controversial. And I wanted to get your perspective as somebody who has worked in government, this deal that was made, you mentioned a little

bit about the idea of why were other people able to be protected in this agreement if no one else was being investigated. When you look at this agreement, you know, people said it was a slap on the wrist for Jeffrey Epstein. It allowed him to commit abuses for years to come. That agreement in and of itself, what's your take on it? If it's okay with you, I just want to be very harsh and very blunt about it. Please do. Please do. That agreement back in 2007, 2008-ish, allowed for more children to be victimized, full stop, period, the end. Because Jeffrey Epstein, there's no sign based on all the documents that has still been released as a result of

this that he stopped after, you know, his 13 months that he served going in and out of kind of a work release in prison, there's no indication that he stopped. And our criminal justice system is supposed to levy consequences, right, to stop behaviors. It completely failed. These women or girls at that point throughout the entirety of the criminal justice system. And I hate to say this, but I do believe that the government is just as much to blame and is just as much complicit in allowing for that agreement. I know that that's harsh, but that's really how I felt about this. I'm glad you mentioned that because I'll tell you one thing. You're not alone in thinking that. I'm sure. A lot of people have the same opinion. And I'll tell you what. We'll see in the

comments what people have to say about it as well. Tracy Walder, such a pleasure talking to you. Thank you for coming on and giving your perspective. And we will see what happens with Elaine Maxwell's case next. Thank you for having me. All right, everybody. That is all we have for you right now on this episode of Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us, as always. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. Spotify.