Like many people, I foolishly thought that we had heard the last of disgraced sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell for at least the next twenty years. (Barring some sort of early release deal.) Maxwell was convicted of trafficking women and even underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein after his “tragic suicide” in a prison cell in August of 2019. In June of last year, she was sentenced to two decades behind bars. But now her attorneys have filed a lengthy appeal, asking for that conviction to be thrown out and their client to be released. They are claiming that the judge in the case committed a series of “fatal errors” that prevented Maxwell from receiving a fair trial, as well as claiming that the original trial never should have been held. And while it pains me to admit it, they might actually have a shot at prevailing. (NY Post)

Convicted sex predator Ghislaine Maxwell formally appealed her sex-trafficking conviction Tuesday, arguing prosecutors and the judge made a series of “fatal” errors during her case in Manhattan federal court.

Maxwell’s attorney Arthur Aidala said in a statement Tuesday the Justice Department had prosecuted his client as a “proxy” for Jeffrey Epstein to “satisfy public outrage” over the case in the aftermath of his sudden in-custody death.

He accused the government of working with Epstein accusers “to develop new allegations out of faded, distorted, and motivated memories.”

Maxwell’s attorneys are building a case for either a retrial or dismissal on five pillars, two of which are particularly interesting. The first claim is that the trial never should have been held because she was shielded from any federal prosecution as part of the plea deal that Epstein made in Florida with Alex Acosta. Some legal analysts have called the claim “absurd” and they convinced the judge in Maxwell’s case to dismiss it. But it was never a cut-and-dry situation. The plea deal certainly had the stench of corruption around it, but the deal was still made and accepted. And it included a provision that “immunized Epstein for any further associated crimes–along with his named and unnamed alleged co-conspirators.” The Southern District of New York dismissed the claim, but they never really showed why the Non-Prosection Agreement wouldn’t apply to her as an obvious “unnamed co-conspirator.”

The second pillar may have more legs than the first. A juror in Maxwell’s trial by the name of Scotty David was later found to have withheld information about sexual abuse he allegedly suffered as a child. That not only could have affected his response as a juror but it was revealed that he used his experiences during the jury’s deliberations to convince the other jurors to convict her.

Maxwell’s attorneys are further arguing that she was used as a “proxy for Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy public outrage.” The “outrage” in question was caused by Epstein’s sudden demise, making him unavailable for a trial where he could be held accountable for his crimes. While there is no doubt some truth in that sentiment, it shouldn’t be relevant. She either committed the crimes or she didn’t. A judge and jury believed that she did.

Personally, I find it impossible to believe that so many witnesses could have been lying and just trying to “frame” Maxwell. She lived a lavish life as a result of being in Epstein’s inner circle and it appears that she was deeply involved in his decadent and abusive behavior. But our legal system contains plenty of trap doors for prosecutors and Ghislaine Maxwell’s legal team is obviously trying to trip at least one of them. I wouldn’t rule out their chances entirely.