The United States Supreme Court is meeting Monday in a private hearing to, among other things, review appeals including one from convicted sex trafficker and Jeffrey Epstein-associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
And legal experts say she has a fair chance of having her conviction overturned and ultimately released.
“They're meeting right now, looking at hundreds and hundreds of petitions that were filed over the summer,” said Joan Biskupic, CNN’s Supreme Court analyst, speaking on the network Monday with Wolf Blitzer.
“In terms of timing, we could know as soon as the end of this week, or we could know in a couple weeks, because justices often will stagger the results of their conference hearing.”
Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking related to Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting sex-trafficking charges of his own, and is alleged to have run a blackmail operation targeting powerful figures.
Unlike Maxwell, Epstein had already been tried and convicted for sex crimes back in 2008, though he received a generous plea deal that not only saw the disgraced financier plead guilty to one prostitution-related charge – despite the FBI having identified at least 40 potential minor victims – but also receive a non-prosecution agreement that granted immunity to any of Epstein’s potential co-conspirators.
That non-prosecution agreement, Maxwell and her attorneys argue, should be extended to her, and is the basis for her appeal to the Supreme Court to have her conviction overturned. And, without commenting on the morality of the matter, CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero said Maxwell’s argument wasn’t without merit.
“She has a non-frivolous argument when it comes to her claim that the non-prosecution agreement should have covered her,” Cordero said.
Specifically, Cordero zeroed in on the exact wording used in Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement: “the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,” it reads.
The use of the term “United States” in the agreement, even though it was reached in the Southern District of Florida, would be key to Maxwell’s case.
“It's possible that the Court will take it up, but there are some unusual circumstances about her particular case in the fact that she wasn't actually a party to the agreement herself,” Cordero said.
