Event Details
March 29, 2021
Description
Maxwell's second superseding indictment
Participants (4)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAXWELL | person | 1792 | View Entity |
| United States Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York | organization | 118 | View Entity |
| GHISLAINE MAXWELL | person | 9575 | View Entity |
| USAO-SDNY | organization | 132 | View Entity |
Source Documents (4)
DOJ-OGR-00021798.jpg
This document, a legal filing dated September 17, 2024, discusses an appeal related to Maxwell's prosecution. It addresses five key questions, including whether Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement barred Maxwell's prosecution by the USAO-SDNY, the compliance of Maxwell's March 29, 2021 indictment with the statute of limitations, and the District Court's discretion in denying a new trial and its response to a jury note. The document concludes that Epstein's NPA did not bar Maxwell's prosecution, her indictment complied with limitations, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
DOJ-OGR-00021881.jpg
This document is page 4 of an appellate court decision (likely 2nd Circuit) dated December 2, 2024, affirming the conviction and sentence of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida did not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell. Additionally, the court affirms that the indictment was within the statute of limitations and that the District Court correctly denied a motion for a new trial regarding juror misconduct.
DOJ-OGR-00014854.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal opinion (likely from an appellate court) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida does not prevent the Southern District of New York from prosecuting Maxwell, and confirms that the statute of limitations was not violated. The document also notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000 and denied a new trial regarding juror conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021851.jpg
This is page 4 of a legal opinion (Case 22-1426) affirming the conviction and sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The court holds that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement in Florida does not protect Maxwell from prosecution in New York, affirms that the indictment complied with the statute of limitations, and denies that a juror's erroneous answers during voir dire warranted a new trial. The document notes Maxwell was fined a total of $750,000.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
Notice of Appearance as Substitute Counsel filed on behalf of Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell
2021-03-30 • 02nd Circuit Court of Appeals
A shipment discussed in court, sent from Ghislaine Maxwell to Casey Wasserman. The event is stated to have occurred in 'October'.
Date unknown
Maxwell taught Jane how to massage Epstein, which led to the abuse.
Date unknown
LETTER REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion filed by Ghislaine Maxwell.
2020-07-29
Filing or processing of the Reply Memorandum in Support of Third Motion for Bail
2021-04-01 • Federal Court (Implied)
The appeal by Defendant-Appellant Maxwell was dismissed, and the motion to consolidate was denied as moot.
2020-10-19
Carolyn testifies that Maxwell, two of Mr. Epstein's friends, and two other girls saw her fully naked in a massage room.
Date unknown • massage room at Jeffrey Epstein's house
Early phase of the conspiracy where Maxwell and Epstein identified, isolated, groomed, and sexually abused vulnerable girls.
1994-01-01
Filing of Document 172-1 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN
2021-03-23 • US District Court
Later phase of the scheme where Maxwell and Epstein developed a stream of girls who recruited each other to visit Epstein's Palm Beach residence, where they were paid.
2001-01-01 • Palm Beach residence
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event