print-icon
print-icon

Ghislaine Maxwell Petition To Overturn Conviction Could Delay Release Of Epstein Files

blueapples's Photo
by blueapples
Thursday, Dec 18, 2025 - 12:30

blueapples on X | ashesofacacia.substack.com


Disgraced socialite Ghislaine Maxwell has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in a last-ditch effort to overturn her convictions on five federal charges related to her role as the chief accomplice in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking network. In December 2021, Maxwell was found guilty of five of the six charges federal prosecutors brought against her: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and three separate acts of conspiracy. The lone charge Maxwell was acquitted of was for enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts. Since being sentenced to 20 years in prison for her crimes, Maxwell has remained the only member of Epstein's depraved criminal network to be put behind bars. While that injustice led to an outcry that culminated in the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act with the hopes of bringing other conspirators of the infamous sexual predator to justice, Maxwell's attempt to overturn her conviction presents the latest impasse barring the full release of the Epstein Files™ necessary to achieve that aim.

Maxwell was moved to a minimum security Texas prison in early August.

Provisions in the Epstein Files Transparency Act provide Attorney General Pam Bondi with numerous exceptions that allow her to continue to withhold crucial information from the public. One such exception allows the United States Department of Justice to withhold files if their release could jeopardize active criminal investigations or prosecutions. That exception has already led to doubts about whether the full scope of the files will ever be released, with the DOJ and other politicians referring to the potential redactions being made in the interest of "national security." Critics have translated those remarks as a forewarning that any evidence of Epstein's connections to intelligence agencies would inevitably be withheld. Consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus presents an opportunity for Bondi to exercise that exception, as the filing could result in a new trial for Maxwell, which would suffice as an active prosecution relating to the files being released by the DOJ.

Maxwell's attorneys previously invoked the exceptions in the Epstein Files Transparency Act after the DOJ motioned to lift restrictions on grand jury testimony and other nonpublic records from her case, citing requirements for their release under the legislation. "Releasing the grand jury materials from her case, which contain untested and unproven allegations, would create undue prejudice so severe that it would foreclose the possibility of a fair retrial should Ms. Maxwell's habeas petition succeed," Maxwell's attorneys wrote in opposition to the motion. Despite attorneys for Maxwell arguing their release would jeopardize her ability to receive a fair retrial, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer granted the motion filed by the DOJ.

However, at the time the motion was granted by Engelmayer, Maxwell had yet to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition being filed on December 17th makes it a matter of court record, complicating Engelmayer's ruling to release the grand jury transcripts among other disclosures in the forthcoming release of the Epstein Files™, as the wheels have now been set in motion for a potential retrial of Maxwell. In October, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would not review a decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit to uphold her conviction, exhausting Maxwell's avenues for appellate review. However, the writ of habeas corpus filed by Maxwell takes a distinctly different basis for appeal than the one her attorneys previously pursued on the grounds that the infamous non-prosecution agreement that Epstein received in 2007 should have applied to her case.

In the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Maxwell pro se, she argues "substantial new evidence has emerged" that demonstrates she had not received a fair trial leading to her conviction. The newly emerged evidence cited by Maxwell in her petition comes from litigation brought against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Epstein estate, and financial institutions connected to the notorious sexual predator. Maxwell argues this evidence proves juror misconduct, collusion between victims' attorneys and the government, and violations of her due process rights. She asserts that this evidence was not available during her trial nor subsequent appeals, going as far as to claim "exculpatory information was withheld, false testimony presented, and material facts misrepresented to the jury and the Court."

Even if the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Maxwell is not granted, she still maintains hope that she will be released from prison before her sentence concludes. Maxwell and her legal counsel met with Deputy Attorney General and former Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche for nine hours over the summer amid a backlash to the Trump administration's failure to deliver on its promise to release the Epstein Files. During the meeting, Maxwell denied claims implicating Trump in Epstein's crimes in an attempt to curry favor with the president with the ultimate hope that he would offer her a pardon or commutation of her sentence.

While the faint embers of that hope may mean that the success of her petition for a writ of habeas corpus may ultimately be inconsequential to granting her early release from prison, the filing creates another hurdle in the tireless and seemingly futile fight for full transparency over the release of the Epstein Files™. Maxwell's petition being filed comes just two days before the December 19th deadline the DOJ has to release its documents in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, presenting AG Pam Bondi with yet another opportunity to withhold crucial information the public has tirelessly fought to bring to light.

Contributor posts published on Zero Hedge do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Zero Hedge, and are not selected, edited or screened by Zero Hedge editors.
Loading...