by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law
Ghislaine Maxwell is of course trying her darndest to have her case re-opened, her conviction overturned, habeas corpus, hocus-pocus, whatever will get her out of prison.
In a 26-page supplemental memorandum put together pro se by Maxwell, and just filed *yesterday* with the Court (included for Notes from the Front members), Maxwell argues violations of various rules of law by the DOJ, including Brady (the prosecution must turn over to the defense any evidence it possesses which is exculpatory (goes towards proof of innocence)); Giglio (prosecution must turn over to the defense material it possesses that could impeach the testimony of a witness); Napue (the duty to correct known false testimony); and violations of due process, *and*, and I quote, "Petitioner's claims concerning the scope and effect of the Non-Prosecution Agreement".
It is this last one that I find most interesting.
Maxwell essentially argues that the non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") which was executed with Epstein in 2007 extends to co-conspirators *in addition* to those explicitly named (those being Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Leslie Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova).
And indeed, the NPA (also included for Notes from the Front members) actually says "In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner described above, if Epstein successfully fulfills all of the terms and conditions of this agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, *including but not limited to* Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova."
HOWEVER: That NPA was executed by and with the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL).
Maxwell was prosecuted, tried, and convicted in the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has already held *in Maxwell's case* that the SDNY is *not* bound by an agreement made with the SDFL. And she appealed it to the Supreme Court and the Supremes *denied cert* (in other words declined to hear it, leaving the Second Circuit's opinion and order in place).
But that isn't stopping Maxwell from trying.
Her basic thesis is contained in this paragraph:
"First, the Government's contemporaneous records demonstrate that the NPA was negotiated over an extended period; that commitments were made to Epstein's counsel before its execution; that those commitments were incorporated into the executed Agreement; that federal prosecutors continued to revise and implement the Agreement after its execution; and that Government officials contemporaneously understood the Agreement to provide broad protection extending to identified co-conspirators, including Petitioner."
She also says that it has become clear that "the Epstein investigation was not confined to a single United States Attorney's Office but instead operated as a coordinated multi-district federal investigation involving continuing communications among prosecutors, investigators, and other federal districts."
Meaning, she sort of says, and we are to infer, that while the defendant may have had access to the records at one U.S. Attorney's Office, there were other relevant records across multiple other offices of which she was unaware, and of which she only became aware after her conviction and after the DOJ dropped the Epstein Files pursuant to the EFTA.
I also suspect that her "but instead operated as a coordinated multi-district federal investigation involving continuing communications among prosecutors, investigators, and other federal districts" language may be setting her up for another run at overturning the Second Circuit's holding by alleging that new information has come to light that demonstrates that in fact the SDNY *should* be bound by the NPA because the various districts were acting as a single entity.
She then explains that "The purpose of this filing is therefore narrow. It identifies documentary evidence materially supplementing constitutional claims already pending before this Court. It neither enlarges the issues presented nor advances new legal theories. Rather, it provides the Court with the most complete documentary record presently available concerning claims previously asserted under Brady, Giglio, Napue, the Due Process Clause, and Petitioner's claim regarding the intended scope and implementation of the Non-Prosecution Agreement."
And then she goes into depth about it all.
There also are several exhibits included at the end of the memorandum.
Now, this document has been requested to be filed *under seal*, so you can be damned sure I'm not making it available publicly.
I know you are going to ask whether I think she has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of prevailing. I do not.
Notes from the Front members: The documents are below for you now. DO NOT SHARE THE MEMORANDUM! (NOTE: If you have installed the Substack app on any mobile device you need to be sure to go to your notifications settings *in the app*, and reset notifications to “email”, otherwise you will *not* my posts with the documents in your email.)
My investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:
- Join Notes from the Front: It's just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that below where it says “Upgrade”.
- Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
- Share this post
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a sentence in a comment that includes the word "snowball". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about snowballs! ;~)
(The above was provided by me, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney and law professor emeritus - all me, no AI, the buck stops here.)
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.