Ghislaine Maxwell Denied Bail Again

Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers tried hard to have her released on bail this month. The Government fought them tooth and nail. Guess who won? The Government. The full order is not yet released because the parties have to go through it and redact it to protect the privacy interests of those mention. But the short version is here.

The ruling is based strictly on flight risk, as the Government didn't argue she was a danger to the community. [More...]

Furthermore, for substantially the same reasons as the Court determined that detention was warranted in the initial bail hearing, the Court again concludes that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance at future proceedings.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court considers the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged, the weight of the evidence against the Defendant, the history and characteristics of the Defendant, and the nature and seriousness of the danger that the Defendant’s release would pose. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The Government does not contend that the Defendant poses a danger to the community. Nonetheless the Court determines that the other three factors warrant detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Court also finds that the Defendant’s proposed bail conditions would not reasonably assure her appearance at future proceedings.

As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pre-trial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal.

Ghislaine's brief in support of her motion for release is here. The Government's response in opposition is here.

Ghislaine's lawyers, after proposing a $22 million bond secured by assets owned by her husband and family, points out:

Justice is not reserved solely for the victims of a crime; it is for the accused as well. Here, justice would be served by granting Ms. Maxwell bail under the comprehensive conditions we propose. The alternative is continued detention under oppressive conditions that are unprecedented for a non-violent pretrial detainee, which significantly impair her ability to participate in her defense and prepare for trial and which jeopardize her physical health and psychological well being.

(my emphasis).

As to the evidence against her, the Government has turned over 1.2 million pages of documents so far. Her lawyers say:

The discovery contains no meaningful documentary corroboration of the allegations whatsoever, much less “significant” corroboration that the Court was led to believe existed. ...

...[T]he only police reports provided are exculpatory. ....In sum. the discovery contains not a single contemporaneous email, text message, phone record, diary entry, police report, or recording that implicates Ms. Maxwell in the 1994-1997 conduct underlying the conspiracy charged in the indictment. The few documents in the discoveiy that pertain to the people we believe to be the three complainants referenced in the indictment do little if anything. to support the government's case against Ms. Maxwell.

Maxwell also provided written legal opinions from French and English extradition law experts which said since she has waived her right to contest extradition in both places, it' s likely both countries would extradite if she were found there and the U.S. so requested.

Her lawyers continue:

It appears that the evidence in this case boils down to witness testimony about events that allegedly took place over 25 years ago. Far from creating a ?ight risk, the lack of corroboration only reinforces Ms. Maxwell's conviction that she has been falsely accused and strengthens her long-standing desire to face the allegations against her and clear her name in court.

Maxwell's lawyers also argued that the conditions under which Maxwell are held are more onerous than those for accused terrorists and inmates at Supermax in Florence, CO, including:

  • De Facto Solitary Confinement
  • Excessive Surveillance
  • Excessive Scanning and Strip Searching
  • Deprivation of Food
  • Deprivation of Sleep
  • Deprivation of Communication with Family and Friends
  • Compromised Communication with Legal Counsel

They point out:

Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirety of her detention—now over five months—in de facto solitary confinement, under conditions that rival those used at USP Florence ADMAX to supervise the most dangerous inmates in the federal system and are tantamount to imprisonment as a defendant convicted of capital murder and incarcerated on death row. In fact, multiple wardens and interim wardens have remarked that in their collective years of experience they have never seen anything like her current regime.

The restrictive regulations to which Ms. Maxwell is subjected are not reasonably related to a legitimate goal to ensure the security of Ms. Maxwell or the MDC. Instead, it seems clear that the overly restrictive conditions are an exaggerated response to [Jeffrey]Epstein’s death, effectively punishing Ms. Maxwell for the BOP’s own negligence with respect to Epstein

And so it is likely, that Ghislaine Maxwell will spend many more months in restrictive custody prior to her trial. I would have granted her bail.

< Trump Signs COVID-19 Relief Bill, House to Vote on $2k payments | McConnell Blocks Vote on $2k Stimulus Payments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder if (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 09:12:46 AM EST
    she is on Trumps pardon list.

    Probably not being a woman.

    In this video from 2019 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 30, 2020 at 02:40:14 AM EST
     Epstein and Trump are at a party at Mar-a-Lago in November, 1992. Ghislaine is there as well. Here are two screenshots of her, Trump and Epstein that I grabbed from the video. You might be right, he does seem to ignore her. (Here and here)

    (Comment corrected to reflect (as Peter points out) that the video is from 2019.)


    I don't think this is new (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 29, 2020 at 10:43:52 PM EST
    It was newly uncovered in 2019. It is not, as you suggest, a second, similar tape only recently discovered.

    you are right I will (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 30, 2020 at 02:34:01 AM EST
    correct it, thanks!