| Long legal battle by Jeffrey Epstein victims could sink Ghislaine Maxwell’s defence

  • Alleged
    victims of Jeffrey Epstein are fighting a legal battle to undo an unusual plea
    deal that spared him from federal prison.
  • Epstein
    associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal defence could also be impacted by the
    outcome of this legal battle.
  • Maxwell’s
    lawyers said in court papers on Friday she intends to argue she cannot be
    prosecuted because of the plea deal.

who say they were victims of Jeffrey Epstein have spent 12 years trying to undo
an unusual plea deal that spared the deceased financier from federal prison.
Now their efforts could sink a key legal defence for Ghislaine Maxwell, who was
charged this month with luring girls so Epstein could abuse them.

The 2007 deal allowed Epstein to
plead guilty in a Florida court to soliciting minors to engage in prostitution
and serve just 13 months in county jail.

The once-secret agreement
included non-prosecution protection for unidentified co-conspirators such as
Maxwell, a provision that US attorneys since have acknowledged in court was

Maxwell’s defence lawyers did not
respond to requests for comment and prosecutors declined to comment.

But Maxwell’s lawyers said in
court papers on Friday she intends to argue she cannot be prosecuted because of
the agreement, a defence Manhattan federal prosecutors on Monday called

The government charged Maxwell
with luring and grooming minors for sexual abuse by Epstein at his mansions in
Florida, New York and New Mexico, as well as at Maxwell’s London residence, in
the 1990s. She is also charged with perjury from 2016 testimony in a civil case.

Deal violated Crime Victims Rights Act

A judge on Tuesday afternoon is
expected to decide whether Maxwell should get bail.

The 2007 plea deal also came up
last year when Epstein was charged with child sex crimes by Manhattan federal
prosecutors, who said the Florida deal did not protect Epstein in New York.
Before the issue could be resolved in court, Epstein was found hanged in a
Manhattan jail while awaiting trial. His death was ruled a suicide.

Several alleged victims of
Epstein have been challenging the plea deal since 2008, arguing it violated the
Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) by concealing the Epstein plea and non-prosecution
agreement until after it was signed.

Had the alleged victims been
informed of the deal, which they argue was their right under the CVRA, they
could have tried to prevent a judge from approving it.

The plaintiffs are seeking to
invalidate the deal and the provision that protected co-conspirators, but after
Epstein died, a federal judge tossed their case.

That ruling was upheld by a
three-judge panel on an appeals court in Atlanta this year, which ruled 2-1
that the CVRA had not been triggered because Epstein was never charged with a
federal crime.

Crimes committed before and after time frame

The alleged victims have asked
the full Atlanta federal appeals court to revive their case and determine if
the lower court wrongly refused to invalidate the plea deal, said Paul Cassell,
who represents alleged Epstein victim Courtney Wild in the CVRA case.

“If the agreement is ripped
up, she can’t get to first base,” said Cassell, who is also a law
professor at the University of Utah, former federal prosecutor and former
federal judge.

On Monday, prosecutors dismissed
Maxwell’s plea deal defence. In a court filing, they said her crimes were
committed before and after the time frame of the plea deal, Maxwell was not a
named party to the deal and argued prosecutors in New York are not bound by
their counterparts in Florida.

Retired Harvard Law Professor
Alan Dershowitz, who helped defend Epstein in 2007, said Maxwell can counter
each of those arguments. “When the United States government makes a
promise, it’s binding all over the country,” he said.

The alleged victims have garnered
noteworthy support for their appeals case, including from US Senator Dianne
Feinstein, a Democrat, and former Republican senators Orrin Hatch and Jon Kyl,
authors of the 2004 CVRA law.

The trio filed a brief urging the
Atlanta federal appeals court to revisit the Epstein plea deal and CVRA case.

miscarriage of justice,” they said of the agreement, “is precisely
what the act prevents.”

Article source: