EPSTEIN
page 2 / 30 . OCR, unverified
respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page3 of 26
of three years, three years, and five years, respectively. The District
Court also imposed a fine of $250,000 on each count for a total of
$750,000.
On appeal, the questions presented are (1) whether Jeffrey
Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) with the United States
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”)
barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office
for the Southern District of New York (“USAO-SDNY”); (2) whether
Maxwell’s second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021 (the
“Indictment”) complied with the statute of limitations; (3) whether the
District Court abused its discretion in denying Maxwell’s Rule 33
motion for a new trial based on the claimed violation of her Sixth
Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury; (4) whether the District
Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment
of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment; and
(5) whether Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
We hold that Epstein’s NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution
by USAO-SDNY as the NPA does not bind USAO-SDNY. We hold
that Maxwell’s Indictment complied with the statute of limitations as
U.S.C. § 3283 extended the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for
offenses committed before the date of the statute’s enactment. We
further hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial based on one juror’s
erroneous answers during voir dire. We also hold that the District
Court’s response to a jury note did not result in a constructive
amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page4 of 26
Indictment. Lastly, we hold that Maxwell’s sentence is procedurally
reasonable.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022,
judgment of conviction.
I. BACKGROUND 1
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell coordinated, facilitated, and
contributed to Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of women and underage
girls. Starting in 1994, Maxwell groomed numerous young women to
engage in sexual activity with Epstein by building friendships with
these young women, gradually normalizing discussions of sexual
topics and sexual abuse. Until about 2004, this pattern of sexual abuse
continued as Maxwell provided Epstein access to underage girls in
various locations in the United States.
1. Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement
In September 2007, following state and federal investigations
into allegations of Epstein’s unlawful sexual activity, Epstein entered
into an NPA with USAO-SDFL. In the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead
guilty to one count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Florida
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are drawn from the evidence presented at trial
and described in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Litwok, 678
F.3d 208, 210-11 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Because this is an appeal from a judgment of conviction
entered after a jury trial, the [ ] facts are drawn from the trial evidence and described in the
light most favorable to the Government.”).
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page5 of 26
Statutes § 796.07,2 and to one count of solicitation of minors to engage
in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes § 796.03.3 He agreed to
receive a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment on the two
charges. In consideration of Epstein’s agreement, the NPA states that
“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.”4
2. Maxwell’s Indictment and Trial-Related Proceedings
The Indictment filed against Maxwell contained eight counts,
six of which proceeded to trial.5 Prior to the commencement of trial,
Florida Statutes § 796.07 provides in relevant part:
(2) It is unlawful:
(f) To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution,
lewdness, or assignation.
Florida Statutes § 796.03, which has since been repealed, provided in relevant part: “A
person who procures for prostitution, or causes to be prostituted, any person who is under
the age of 18 years commits a felony of the second degree.”
A-178.
Count One charged Maxwell with conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal
sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two charged Maxwell with enticement of a
minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count
Three charged Maxwell with conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in
criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charged Maxwell with