My sources are two podcast episodes titled “Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Day 1” and “Episode 201: Julie K. Brown” produced by the True Anon podcast. The episodes were released November 29, 2021, and January 16, 2022, respectively. The episodes can be found on any podcast streaming platform such as Spotify, Soundcloud, or Patreon.
True Anon podcast co-hosts, Brace Belden and Liz Franczak, travelled to New York City to attend and cover United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial) at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The pair attended each day of the trial and recorded and released podcast episodes each evening in which they recapped what they observed and provided commentary.
In the episode, “Ghislaine Maxwell Trial: Day 1”, Belden lists the federal felony charges against Maxwell, which include 1 count enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, 1 count of transportation of a minor with intent to engage in illegal sex acts, 1 count of sex trafficking a minor, and 3 counts of conspiracy. Belden notes Maxwell was also charged with 2 counts of perjury which would be considered in a separate trial.
Both the prosecution and defense gave opening statements on the first day of the trial. Lara Pomerantz delivered the prosecution’s opening statements by telling the story of Victim 1. Pomerantz used Victim 1’s story to illustrate the dynamic between Epstein and Maxwell who together sexually preyed on young women by exploiting their class dynamics. She specifically described crimes committed by Epstein before explaining how Maxwell facilitated the crimes. Pomerantz also laid out what evidence the prosecution would present during trial which included massage tables, nude photos, flight logs, travel logs, and gift receipts. Additionally, Pomerantz discussed what witnesses would be presented.
Bobbi Sternheim delivered the defense’s opening statements. She began by saying, “Ever since Eve tempted Adam, women have been blamed for the crimes of men”. Sternheim made the argument that because Epstein died before he could be tried by the same court, Ghislaine had essentially become a scapegoat for his crimes. Additionally, Sternheim stated the trial was about “money, memory, and manipulation” arguing that each of the victims were either after money, experiencing false memories, and/or being manipulated by the prosecution into testifying. Sternheim ended the opening argument by going through each victim one by one and laying out where she would contest them.
Outside of these restatements of the opening remarks, much of the commentary made by Belden and Franczak was comedic or focused on the energy of the trial and courtroom. They did discuss their concern over how the prosecution would present a convincing case. Specifically, the hosts felt that Ghislaine more than anything was guilty of grooming minors and that because grooming is not a legal term the prosecution would have to be creative in how they defined it and how they would find applicable laws.
I chose next to listen to “Episode 201: Julie K. Brown”. This episode was published a few weeks after the trial had ended and served as a retrospective on the trial. Belden and Franczak recorded the episode with Miami Herald journalist Julie K. Brown who had also attended the trial. Brown began covering Epstein in the early 2000s after he was arrested in 2006 by the Palm Beach Police Department on one state felony charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” and agreed to a plea deal with the Southern District of Florida that included a non-prosecution agreement with four named and any other unnamed co-conspirators. From Brown’s viewpoint, the original case against Epstein had been mishandled and the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial was “…an attempt to hold at least someone accountable…” but only addressed “…one piece of a huge crime…”. The case was prosecuted incredibly narrowly as to avoid any mention of third parties which Brown believed would only sew more distrust in the criminal justice system.
While legal concepts arose in these two episodes, most weren’t explained in detail. Basic courtroom roles such as “prosecution”, “defense”, and “judge” were mentioned. The trial venue was mentioned but the basis for jurisdiction was not addressed. The charges against Maxwell were listed but not defined. Interestingly, Julie K Brown stated that the charges against Maxwell were specifically designed to avoid the statute of limitations. Brown briefly described how Epstein’s Palm Beach Charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” had originated from a 14-year-old victim but had been misattributed to a 16-year-old victim to lessen its legal weight. Brown also discussed how the non-prosecution agreement from the Southern District of Florida may have had a role in the narrow scope of Maxwell’s trial. Brown also briefly mentioned that while building a case against Epstein in Florida, an assistant district attorney suddenly quit and was hired days later to work for Epstein’s defense team. This was never investigated but made me immediately think of our recent chapter on Ethics and Responsibility in regard to conflicts of interest and walling off procedures when an attorney changes jobs.
I feel these episodes accurately portrayed the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and accurately represented what the legal field can be like. However, this was a unique, high-profile federal felony trial with an incredibly narrow scope that should have been properly prosecuted as far back as 2005. There are certainly other high-profile trials that become media spectacles, but I’d wager those aren’t representative of the trials that happen every in federal court. Big cases like these have certainly played a role in my interest in the legal profession and specifically my interest in working as an investigator. The prosecution of both Epstein and Maxwell not only uncovered a peek into their incredibly bizarre and audacious world but also revealed that there are forces within the state and federal government that would like to keep as much as possible of that world behind closed doors.
