- Maxwell filed a habeas petition last December seeking to set aside her conviction and free her from a 20-year prison sentence, claiming exonerating information was withheld and false testimony presented, resulting in a “complete miscarriage of justice.”
- Judge Paul A. Engelmayer rejected her arguments, saying in his written ruling that they 'all or almost all are frivolous' and that she had presented nothing that could upend the outcome of her trial.
- Engelmayer wrote that 'nearly all its claims are procedurally barred; the overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence adduced at trial conclusively established her guilt; and her petition's claims are demonstrably meritless, and generally based on speculation, distortions, and/or outright falsehoods.'
- Engelmayer said that material is 'largely irrelevant to the charges against Maxwell and does not support her claims of error.'
- He added, 'On the contrary, to the extent it is relevant, far from exculpating her, it incriminates her or reinforces the correctness of the legal rulings Maxwell challenges.'
- Engelmayer said she could have raised that claim on appeal after her trial, but he found it to be frivolous nonetheless.
- Among the recently released Justice Department documents, 'she does not cite any that reveals the existence of an uncharged confederate, let alone one as instrumental as she in facilitating Epstein’s horrific crimes,' the judge said.
Ghislaine Maxwell's bid to overturn her conviction has been firmly rejected by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, who described her claims as 'frivolous' and lacking merit.26
Maxwell, serving a 20-year sentence, filed a habeas petition last December, alleging that exonerating evidence was withheld and false testimony was presented during her trial.1
Engelmayer's ruling emphasized that 'nearly all its claims are procedurally barred.'3
He noted that the evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly established her guilt, stating, 'her petition's claims are demonstrably meritless, and generally based on speculation, distortions, and/or outright falsehoods.'
The judge further remarked that the materials Maxwell referenced were largely irrelevant to her charges and did not support her claims of error.4
'To the extent it is relevant, far from exculpating her, it incriminates her or reinforces the correctness of the legal rulings Maxwell challenges,' Engelmayer wrote.5
He concluded that Maxwell could have raised her claims on appeal but found them to be without merit nonetheless.
This ruling underscores the strength of the evidence against her, as Maxwell continues to seek avenues to challenge her conviction.
“Engelmayer wrote that nearly all claims are procedurally barred and that the evidence conclusively established her guilt. He also noted that recently released Justice Department documents do not reveal an uncharged confederate as instrumental as Maxwell in facilitating Epstein's crimes.”
Global News
