20250117133905126_22-1426.pdf

22-1426-cr United States v. Maxwell In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit A UGUST TERM 2023 No. 22-1426-cr U NITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. G HISLAINE MAXWELL, also known as Sealed Defendant 1, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York A RGUED: MARCH 12, 2024 D ECIDED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 Before: C ABRANES, WESLEY, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page1 of 26 2 Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). She was principally sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release. On appeal, the questions presented are whether (1) Jeffrey Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida barred Maxwell’s prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; (2) a second superseding indictment of March 29, 2021, complied with the statute of limitations; (3) 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) the District Court’s response to a jury note resulted in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the second superseding indictment; and (5) Maxwell’s sentence was procedurally reasonable. Identifying no errors in the District Court’s conduct of this complex case, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page2 of 26 3 ANDREW ROHRBACH, Assistant United States Attorney (Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, Lara Pomerantz, Won S. Shin, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Damian Williams, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee. D IANA FABI SAMSON ( Arthur L. Aidala, John M. Leventhal, on the brief), Aidala Bertuna & Kamins PC, New York, NY, for Defendant- Appellant. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell appeals her June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Alison J. Nathan, Judge). Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a); and sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). The District Court imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment of 60 months, 120 months, and 240 months, respectively, to be followed by concurrent terms of supervised release Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page3 of 26 4 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 18 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 5 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 1 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 6 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, 2 Florida Statutes § 796.07 provid