Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite, plans to appeal her conviction for arranging for adolescent females to have sexual relations with financier Jeffrey Epstein, but experts say she will struggle to overcome the high legal hurdle.
During the month-long trial, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan gave the defense numerous blows, including dismissing a motion to have certain witnesses testify anonymously and another to prevent lawyers for two of the accusers from entering the stand.
Maxwell’s lawyers are sure to reference previous rulings in any appeal of her conviction by a jury in federal court in Manhattan on five of six counts, including sex trafficking.
Her lawyers would have to establish that Nathan broke federal evidence regulations or misused her judgment in order to win.
Maxwell’s lawyer, Bobbi Sternheim, told reporters on Wednesday, “We have already started working on the appeal, and we are optimistic that she will be vindicated.”
Even if an appellate court agreed that Nathan committed a mistake, Maxwell’s attorneys would have to establish that it had an impact on the case’s conclusion. According to Bennett Gershman, a professor at Pace Law School, a “harmless error” is insufficient to reverse a conviction.
“It’s a huge burden,” Gershman said, noting that federal appellate courts frequently defer to trial judges.
The defense could contend that Kate’s testimony, as one of the accusers, was unlawfully accepted.
Despite the fact that Kate was portrayed as a victim in the indictment, Nathan told the jury that she was over the age of consent at the time of her claimed interactions with Epstein. Nathan, on the other hand, stated that the jury might still accept her testimony if they thought it was useful.
“While the court limited that testimony and gave the jury an appropriate limiting instruction,” Sarah Krissoff, a partner at the Day Pitney law firm and a former federal prosecutor, said, “the defense may continue to argue that Kate’s testimony should have been omitted.”
The defense also took issue with Nathan’s instruction to the jury that they may convict Maxwell if she consciously avoided evidence of Epstein’s crimes, a legal term known as “conscious avoidance.”
Maxwell’s attorneys contended that prosecutors’ premise of the case was that Maxwell was a willing participant rather than a bystander, and accused prosecutors of trying to “have it both ways.”
After noting that the defense had sought to prove that Maxwell was unaware of Epstein’s behavior during opening remarks and cross-examination of witnesses, Nathan eventually permitted the instruction.
“Maxwell will face an uphill road in disputing the conscious avoidance accusation,” Krissoff said, “since the government offered a factual basis for such a charge.”
Maxwell’s lawyers may also argue that Nathan’s judgment barring three defense witnesses from testifying anonymously should be overturned on appeal.
To protect their anonymity as sexual assault victims, three of Maxwell’s four accusers testified under pseudonyms or only using their first names.
The defense witnesses, however, were exempt from privacy issues, according to Nathan, because none of them planned to speak on sensitive personal topics or sexual conduct.
Any appeal, according to Gershman, would be impeded by the fact that Maxwell’s counsel requested anonymity near the end of the trial.
“They should have mentioned this before the trial if they thought it was a big risk,” he said.
