The Daily Signal - Bonus: A Prosecutor's Take on Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

Episode Date: December 14, 2021

The trial of Ghislaine Maxwell—the right-hand woman of deceased financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—continues this week, with Maxwell’s defense attorneys expected to make their case Thursday. Maxwell is charged with recruiting and grooming four underaged girls to be abused by Epstein. To better understand the details and nuance of this disturbing case, The Daily Signal spoke with Zack Smith, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Florida and a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. You can listen to the podcast or read a lightly edited transcript below. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's the Nissan Black Friday event where you can... Wait, wait. Isn't it like a month long now? Nissan Black Friday Month? Does that work? It's the Nissan Black Friday Month event. On remaining 2025 Rogan Centra, get 0% financing. Plus, get $1,000 Nissan bonus on kicks models.

This Black Friday, you've got a whole month to catch all the exclusive offers waiting for you. See your local Nissan dealer or nissan.ca for details. Conditions apply. This is Christian Misloyk, and this is a bonus episode of the Daily Signal podcast. On today's episode, I talked to Zach Smith, legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former prosecutor, about the details of the ongoing Galane Maxwell trial. Take a listen. Prosecutors in the Galane Maxwell trial arrested their case Friday.

Maxwell's defense team is expected to begin its case Thursday. Maxwell is charged with recruiting and grooming for girls to be abused by the late financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. This is between 1994 and 2004. All four were minors at the time. If convicted, Maxwell could face a prison sentence of up to 70 years. So with me today to discuss the trial is former prosecutor and Heritage Foundation legal fellow, Zach Smith. Zach, thanks for joining me today. Of course. Thanks for having me on, Christian. So you've been watching this case closely. Right. Unlike the written house case, there have been no cameras in the courtroom. Right. But that's standard for a federal trial. Right. No, that's absolutely right. You know, when this case initially

began, the trial began 10 days ago or so, about two weeks ago, you know, there were some stories online that the judge had issued a media gag order that no press were being allowed in. That's just not true. Their internal closed circuit cameras so that folks can watch from the courthouse. Typically, pool reporters are allowed in high-profile federal criminal trials, and that's exactly what is happening here. Typically, when you see other televised trials like the written house trial, that's because the courts in a particular state allow those proceedings to be televised. Gotcha. But there are no cameras in federal courtrooms. Understood. We've all had to rely early on news reports, the media, for details about this trial.

But you've been watching it closely. So tell me your impressions about the trial so far. Well, I think certainly Jeffrey Epstein is looming large over the proceedings. There's some sense that in some ways, Gailene Maxwell is standing in for Epstein. And I think that's really what her lawyers, if you listen to the questions they've asked when they've cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses, they've tried to make that point that she is not Jeffrey Epstein and that she, according to her and her attorneys, was not involved in any of his horrifying activities. Trying to pin her as a scapegoat. Right. That's exactly right. And so, you know, you even heard some of that when she was talking about

the conditions she's being held in. You know, she was held without bail. The judge said that she was a flight risk and so that he would not release her on bail. And so her and her attorneys have filed several complaints about the frequent checks on her in prison. It disrupts her sleep schedule, saying that essentially they're taking extra precautions with her because of what happened with Jeffrey Epstein. Right. So as you said, Epstein looms large in this case.

So many bizarre and disturbing aspects of this case. and a lot of it is related to Epstein himself. He has arrested for sex abuse of a minor in 2006. Pleaded guilty in 2008 had an extremely light sentence, arrested again in 2019 on sex trafficking charges, apparently committed suicide in prison. All of this, in light of all this, do you have any faith that the justice system will deal fairly with Maxwell?

Well, I think so. I mean, look, she has very good attorneys. They've clearly done their homework. If you listen to the cross-examination, again, to some of the witnesses, they're clearly trying to poke holes in some of the stories that these witnesses are putting forward in trial, and not necessarily calling them liars, but trying to maybe attribute certain financial motives to some of the witnesses, trying to say that, you know, these events happened 20, 25 years ago in some cases. memories fade, pointing out inconsistencies with some of the prior statements they earlier gave to law enforcement officials. And so, you know, I think I am hopeful that justice will be served, and that certainly this seems to be a, you know, how our system of justice works. You know, there's an adversarial process where the prosecutors present their case. They have the burden

to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And Maxwell, who is represented by very capable defense attorneys are, you know, representing her interests very capably. Mm-hmm. Okay, so there's very little reason to assume that she will be paying for what Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of. Well, I think if she's ultimately convicted, that's certainly what she will say is that she's essentially atoning for Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sins in many of these cases. But look, you know, the prosecutors, in some sense, there are six counts that she was indicted on.

four of those related to essentially these child sex trafficking related charges, and two were perjury charges. Basically, there's an allegation that she lied in a civil deposition, which is a mechanism where someone goes under oath and gives testimony in a civil lawsuit, that she lied in a deposition in a civil case, and so federal prosecutors charged her with perjury. Now, what's interesting here is the judge in this case basically said, we're not going to try the perjury charges with these other sex trafficking related charges. So even if Maxwell is acquitted at this trial of these sex trafficking charges, she presumably would still have to face the two perjury charges that she was also indicted on. I see. And so going back to the sex trafficking charges, we had the four victims, the four accusers who claim to have been abused and also

groaned by Maxwell. Right. They testified. They gave their testimony. Like, were you able to track what they were saying? And did it seem, what were your impressions of their? Yeah. So it seemed to be a pretty consistent story.

Essentially, it seems like where the prosecutors are going with this, is they're essentially painting Maxwell as Jeffrey Epstein's right-hand woman, if you will. You know, the exact nature and extent of their relationships. You know, listening to the testimony seems to be somewhat ambiguous. US, you know, I think at one point, they may have been romantically linked. At one point, it may have been more of an employee-employer relationship. I think Maxwell and her attorney certainly are trying to paint it more of that employee-employer relationship. But essentially, the allegations are that Epstein and Maxwell groomed these very young girls, preyed on their

vulnerabilities, that Maxwell tried to befriend them in some ways, normalized what was happening. And, you know, it's a very, you know, very sad details that come out in trial. Still, many years later, these victims are clearly disturbed. There were tears shed on the stand by these victims. And so, you know, if these allegations, if the jury does find the testimony credible, if these allegations are proved, you know, there's certainly very, very troubling allegations that I would think deserve very harsh punishment. Mm-hmm.

And the onus is on the prosecution to prove this. It is. And look, you know, and I think it's important to realize in a criminal case, prosecutors have to prove each and every element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the highest burden we have in American law. It's much higher than in a civil case than in some other types of proceedings there are. But it's a very high burden for prosecutors. and so it's a very tough standard as it should be when someone's life or liberty is on the line. Right. So a tough standard, but based on what we've heard from the victims or the accusers,

do you think that it's going to meet that baseline? I'm always hesitant to read the Thelius Christian for a couple of reasons. One is the prosecution has arrested. Now, the defense does not have to put on any case. In many criminal trials, in fact, the defense does not put on a case and essentially takes the position that the prosecution has not met their burden. As we understand it, what we heard from Maxwell and her attorneys is that they do intend to put on a vigorous defense, potentially calling up to 35 witnesses in their case in chief, essentially. And so this could be,

you know, there's still a lot that could come out at this trial. And the prosecutors have, I think, hit a few road bumps along the way. You know, one of the things that stands out to me is initially the time that the prosecutors said they would need to present their case to put on their evidence, their witnesses, was supposed to take much longer than it, than they are now saying, than it actually took. It only took them about 10 days to do that. And, you know, whenever that happens, I think it suggests that the prosecutors were cutting witnesses. There may have been problems with having certain individuals testify. So 10 days is short for a prosecution?

Well, it depends on the case. But what stands out is they had initially requested a much longer length of time. And then after witnesses started testifying, after evidence started being put into the record, at that point they revised it significantly downward, which again tends to suggest that there may be reasons they don't want some of these other witnesses to testify at trial. Two other points, I think, quickly stand out to me. One is, you know, it's interesting, the four victims that are testifying at this trial certainly are not all of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, or at least all of the individuals who have come forward as victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. And so, you know, there are always decisions why prosecutors framed their case in this particular way, why they chose these four victims to focus on. But certainly some of Epstein's highest profile accusers have not been called to the witness stand.

do not look like they're going to be called to the witness stand. Virginia Guthrie certainly is one who will not be called that we're aware of. That stands out a little bit. And then also another interesting wrinkle, two of the victims who the prosecutors did call were actually, it looks like, at or right over the age of consent in several of the jurisdictions where the abuse allegedly occurred. And so while they could offer, testimony about some aspects of what occurred between Maxwell and Epstein and themselves, there were other pieces of testimony that I'm sure the prosecutors would have liked to have had that they could not offer because of that age of consent issue. So while they were still

obviously very young, teens in many cases, because they were at the age of consent, the judge ruled there were certain aspects of their interactions that they could not testify about. So when you say that there were likely other witnesses that they wanted to put on the stand of prosecution, and they had to cut that back, we know that both Jeffrey Epstein and Gilein Maxwell had probably an enormous amount of leverage over these victims. And it makes you think how many people are being intimidated away from testifying, how many people are afraid to come out and accuse both Maxwell and when he was alive, Epstein? No, that's absolutely right. Look, all of these victims deserve a great deal of kudos. This is clearly a very traumatic incident that's happened to them. In many cases, from what we've heard, come out at trial.

The abuse typically was not a one-time ordeal. It was something that was repeated over lengthy periods in multiple locations. And so I think everyone recognizes this is a very serious matter, very traumatic incidents that happened to these victims. and I think everyone wants to see justice done. But, you know, in terms of why the prosecutors frame their cases in a certain way or why they may decide not to call someone, there could be other reasons. You know, as I mentioned earlier, we saw Maxwell's defense attorneys take the attack. They attacked one of the victims essentially pointing out how much money should receive

from an Epstein Victims Compensation Fund, suggesting that there may be monetary motives behind. it. In several of the witnesses, they pointed out inconsistencies between their testimony on the stand and prior testimony. They'd given to the FBI. And so as the prosecutors learned more about those kind of problems, you know, they may have been concerned about that. They may have been concerned about maybe some other communication that was occurring between the witnesses that should not have been. You know, this is all just speculation, really. We don't know why they chose not to call these individuals, but it certainly does. I don't know if it raises a red flag. for me, but it certainly piques my interest a little bit.

So Epstein and Maxwell, of course, they had a lot of famous connections. Sure. Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, among others. That shouldn't impact the jury or the judge, but how does it factor into all this? Well, look, there's no doubt this is a high profile trial with, you know, kind of a star-studded cast, you know, rotating in kind of the background here. But so far, what I've heard at testimony, there was some testimony, I believe, from Epstein's longtime pilot on the first day or so, the trial where he was talking about some of the folks

who flew on the, you know, Epstein's private jets, including the famed, or infamous, really, Lolita Express, where some of that abuse occurred. You know, one of the interesting things that stood out to me, Christian, is in this indictment, prosecutors allege that the abuse occurred at four places. It occurred at Epstein's New York home, in his New Mexico ranch at his Palm Beach home in Florida, and then in Maxwell's apartment, basically, in London. The location that was not mentioned, and this is a little interesting to me as well, was Epstein's Caribbean Island that he had. That was frequently mentioned as somewhere he would spend time where I believe there are other allegations that haven't come out at the trial,

that abuse occurred there. And so that was a very interesting decision by the Southern District of New York, the federal prosecutors there, not to include any abuse that occurred on that Caribbean Island in this case. And I'd be interested to know more about why they chose to take that particular attack. But again, we can really only guess as to why that is. What are some of your guesses? I really don't have any good guess. you know, clearly, and I know that's not a very satisfying answer in some ways, but like we're saying before, you know, obviously the prosecutors felt that these four victims would tell the most compelling story, particularly as it pertains to Maxwell.

Because, again, like we were saying earlier, you know, the case is about Maxwell, her conduct, her culpability in facilitating these sex trafficking-related crimes. And so clearly they thought these four victims would provide the most compelling testimony be the best sources for their case and chose to focus on them and frame their case in these particular ways. And so we'll see what the defense has to say once they start putting on their case later this week. But so far, you know, the prosecutors have stuck to their script, it looks like. I want to go back to something you mentioned earlier. So defense attorney for Maxwell, Bobby Sternum, has repeatedly implied that the accusers are seeking to capitalize on their charges, either for fame or exposure or for money, like you mentioned. So I understand that sternum has a job to do, but where exactly is the line of decency in trials like this?

I mean, to talk to these traumatized victims in that way. Well, it's always a fine line. It's a difficult job for defense attorneys. But look, we have an adversarial system. his job is to represent Maxwell to try to create reasonable doubt. I think Bobby's a woman. I'm sorry. Bobby's job is to represent Maxwell to try to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Because remember, Maxwell doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to decide that the prosecutors haven't proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So if they don't believe these witnesses, if they think they were potentially motivated by, some other motive like money or fame or something along those lines, you know, that could be all they need to hang their hat and either get a hung jury or an acquittal for Maxwell. So I recognize what you're saying, you know, I think it's a fine line. And in many cases, jurors may find that line of questioning distasteful, especially if a defense attorney comes at a victim very aggressively. And so that could work against, against, again,

Eileen Maxwell in some ways if the jurors are turned off by the tone, the manner of her lawyer's questioning. But it's certainly appropriate, even though it may be distasteful for Bobby to ask those types of questions. So I mentioned at the beginning of our conversation. So there's no cameras in the courtroom. That's typical for a federal court. We're all relying on the media for updates on the trial.

Is there anything that isn't getting the coverage that it deserves? Is there something that trial viewers should like know that they might not? Well, I think it's important to kind of step back and kind of take the 40,000 foot view of what's happening here. Because in the background, along with Gileen Maxwell's criminal trial, you also have a number of civil suits that have been filed against both her and Jeffrey Epstein's estate, as well as, you know, there's still a lot of bad blood between the non-prosecution. cause of the non-prosecution agreement that Jeffrey Epstein signed with federal prosecutors when he was originally charged in Florida. You know, if you remember, you mentioned that he was a convicted pedophile. Those were charges he was convicted of in state court.

And so essentially, in exchange for pleading to, there are serious charges, but less serious charges than he could have been charged with, I believe, based on the evidence that we know, exist. He pled to a couple of state court felony, sex crime-related charges, and got pretty lenient jail conditions, you know, where he was in, I believe, the Palm Beach County Jail, got work release for a number of 12 hours a day, six days a week, where he could go to his office, very favorable conditions. In exchange for pleading to those state court charges, he essentially got a non-prosecution agreement from federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Palm Beach, that area.

Very controversial non-prosecution agreement. The U.S. attorney who signed off on it is still, you know, being hounded by it today, essentially. But one of the interesting issues that came out of that Christian is there's a federal statute called the CVRA, the Crime Victim Rights Act. And essentially what it says is that crime victims are supposed to be notified of certain proceedings in a criminal case. They're supposed to have their input heard, their voices heard. They're supposed to be treated with dignity and respect throughout the process.

And it looks like that didn't happen. Unfortunately, with that Southern District of Florida prosecution, there's a couple of really interesting legal issues surrounding the application of that statute. That's still being litigated today. There have been calls for Congress to fix kind of some of those gray areas in the statute about what input they can have when they have to be notified. But all that to say, you know, I think the background, of Maxwell's criminal trial that's currently taking place in the Southern District of New York is really there's a concern about the victims in this case, that everyone wants to seek justice for the victims who were subjected to clearly heinous crimes. And, you know, I think

it's important to kind of separate, in some sense, that desire to make sure that the prosecutors, again, are able to prove their charges against Maxwell beyond a reason. double doubt and that she is appropriately held accountable for her criminal conduct, which if, you know, if the jurors believe the testimony of the victims who testified at the trial, there certainly seems to be very troubling conduct on her part as well. Right. So Maxwell's defense attorneys begin their case on Thursday. Right.

I've seen at least one article saying they may close their case on the 20th, so that's, I think, you know, two and a half days. What are your predictions on how this concludes or what should we watch out for? in the defense's case? Well, I think we're going to learn a lot on Thursday. Like I said, they're saying they could call upwards of 35 witnesses in her defense. That would certainly be a lot of witnesses, certainly more than the prosecution called. So it could drag out for a little longer than anticipated.

I suspect you'll try to see her attorneys drawing a distinction between her and Jeffrey Epstein, making clear the point she was not. She is not Jeffrey Epstein. Trying to paint their relationship as more of an employer-employee relationship that she did not know that these horrific crimes were going on. And I suspect they'll certainly try to say, you know, that she did not participate in them in any way. One of the interesting things to look for is whether or not Gilling-Maxwell herself will testify at trial. I suspect she will not. You know, we have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

We don't, if any of us are accused of a crime, we do not have to be, we do not have to testify at trial and it can't be held against us. Typically, I think most criminal defense attorneys would advise a client not to testify, especially if they're problematic issues in their past, like there certainly seem to be with Maxwell. But the ultimate decision will ultimately reside with Gilling Maxwell, whether or not she wants to testify at trial. But I suspect as we go through after the defense presents their case, as the prosecutor and the defense present their closing arguments, I suspect you will, again, hear the defense hit on those same themes, not Epstein, not culpable for any of his actions. And you'll hear the prosecution essentially highlighting the stories of these victims that Gileem Maxwell helped to groom these very young, very vulnerable girls, and then normalized. and in some instances participated in the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and his so-called friends. Right. Well, disturbing case.

We'll see how it plays out. Exactly. Thank you so much for joining me today. Of course. Thank you for having me on. Absolutely. And that'll do it for today's bonus episode. Thanks for listening to Daily Signal podcast.

You can find a Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeartRate. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks so much for listening and we'll be back with you tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Virginia Allen and Kate Trinko, sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, please visit DailySignal.com.