In a move that could upend the outcome of a high-profile case, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a habeas petition on Wednesday asking a judge to set aside her conviction. The petition, which she is presenting pro-solo, claims that newly surfaced evidence shows she was not fairly prosecuted.
Maxwell’s petition cites evidence that emerged from litigation against the FBI, financial institutions and Epstein’s estate, as well as sworn depositions, released records and other “verified sources” that, according to her, reveal that her innocence was “withheld, false testimony presented and material facts misrepresented” to the jury and the court.
“The cumulative effect of these constitutional violations constitutes a complete miscarriage of justice, rendering Petitioner’s conviction invalid, unsafe and infirm,” Maxwell wrote in the filing.
Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of conspiring with and aiding Epstein in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Her challenge arrives a week after a federal judge granted the Trump administration’s request to publicly release scores of records from her sex-trafficking case, following the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
The Act, signed by President Trump last month, directs the Department of Justice to make public Epstein-related records by Friday in a searchable format. Maxwell did not take a position on the government’s request to unseal the materials, but her legal challenge could disrupt the DOJ’s plan to release them.
In a letter to the court earlier this month, Maxwell’s lawyer warned that exposing long-secret grand jury materials could imperil the retrial she now seeks. The lawyer said that “untested and unproven allegations” in the documents would create “undue prejudice so severe” that it would prevent any hope of fairness.
She raises nine primary grounds for relief, arguing that “no reasonable juror would have convicted her” had they had access to evidence she says was suppressed or newly discovered. The claims include alleged juror misconduct, mischaracterizations of evidence, private attorneys acting as de-facto prosecutors, the decades-long delay between her alleged conduct and indictment, and the non-prosecution agreement between the government and Epstein that was central to her Supreme Court challenge.
“No other similarly situated remand inmates with no criminal history facing similar charges were similarly treated,” Maxwell wrote, noting that “P Diddy,” the stage name for rapper Sean Combs, who was convicted on prostitution-related charges, was placed in general population. “Petitioners’ treatment was in direct response to Epstein’s death at MCC,” she added.
The Epstein case returned to public discourse after the Justice Department and FBI issued a joint memo this summer confirming Epstein died by suicide while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges and that he did not have a “client list.” The memo sparked furor among Trump’s political base, which has long called for greater transparency about Epstein. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former defense attorney, interviewed Maxwell about the case in response to the outcry, after which she was transferred from a federal prison in Florida to a minimum-security women’s prison in Texas.
The administration has also moved to investigate Epstein’s past ties to prominent Democrats and institutions, despite saying in its memo earlier this year that a “systematic review” did not uncover any evidence on which charges against “uncharged third parties” could be based. Democrats, meanwhile, released emails last month showing Epstein in 2019 telling associates that “of course” Trump knew about his relationships with underage girls.
Federal judges previously denied the DOJ’s efforts to release the documents but caved after more recent requests cited the new law.
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who oversees Maxwell’s criminal case, wrote in his order to unseal the documents that the government’s motion “misled victims -and the public at large – in holding out the Maxwell grand jury materials as essential to the goal of ‘transparency to the American public,’ when in fact the grand jury materials would not add to public knowledge.” The petition, if granted, could open the door to a new trial, but it also raises questions about how the DOJ will handle the release of sensitive records and the potential impact on ongoing investigations. The outcome of Maxwell’s habeas petition will be closely watched by legal observers, prosecutors, and those who have followed the Epstein saga for years.
