A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend and accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has made her pitch to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Maxwell has been at the center of attention in recent days as President Trump's supporters and critics question his administration's handling of documents in the case against Epstein. She was convicted of sex trafficking. Last week, a senior Justice Department official met with Maxwell at a Florida prison for roughly nine hours. And yesterday, Maxwell's attorneys filed their final brief, asking the Supreme Court to take up her case. They argue that a 2007 plea agreement reached between Epstein and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida included a provision protecting potential co-conspirators from criminal charges. Now, they say that should have stopped her prosecution in New York.
For more on this, we're joined now by Mitchell Epner. He's a former federal prosecutor and partner at New York-based law firm KTAP. So, Mitchell, let's start with that plea agreement from 2007. Why are we talking about it 18 years later?
MITCHELL EPNER: So it's a very unusual plea agreement in that it gave a sweetheart deal to Jeffrey Epstein, which the federal government has since admitted never should have been reached. It also gave a blanket immunity for the things that Jeffrey Epstein was being charged with and had been investigated for to his co-conspirators - both four named co-conspirators, although those names have been blacked out, and any unnamed co-conspirators. So that is step 1.
Step 2 is that with regard to the scope of the immunity for the co-conspirators, it states that the immunity is conferred by the United States, whereas the immunity for Jeffrey Epstein himself was conferred by the United States attorney for the Southern District of Florida. And Maxwell's attorneys have argued at the trial court to the Court of Appeals, and now are asking the Supreme Court to consider that that precluded prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell not only in the Southern District of Florida but by the United States anyplace.
MARTÍNEZ: Is it unusual to use that kind of language?
EPNER: It is very unusual. The Justice Manual, which provides guidelines to all AUSAs and members of the Department of Justice, states that there should not be immunity granted more broadly than the district that is entering into the plea agreement. And if they want to do so, there are special procedures that should be followed. So it's highly unusual. The question here is what was done and what should be done on the basis of the very unusual plea agreement that was reached.
MARTÍNEZ: So why is there, you know, so much ambiguity about the plea agreement's provision? I mean, how often does this kind of stuff happen?
EPNER: So 95% of cases in the federal system get resolved by plea agreement. And in virtually all of those plea agreements, they are very explicit that the immunity only goes to the defendant, and it only covers the district that is granting the immunity. It is unusual for co-conspirators to be granted immunity, and it's even more unusual for unnamed co-conspirators to be granted immunity. And this thing was a mess, and it is highly unusual.
MARTÍNEZ: So given that you just called it a mess, I mean, do you think the Supreme Court's ruling now is kind of overdue, in a way?
EPNER: The Supreme Court has to deal with a couple of things. One is the fact that different courts of appeal deal with this question differently. In the Second Circuit, which is where Ghislaine Maxwell was prosecuted, the ambiguity is resolved in favor of no immunity. In other places, such as the Third Circuit, the ambiguity would be resolved in the favor of there being immunity. So if they decide to decide this case, they have to decide which rule is appropriate. They also have to decide whether or not they want to take on this case. The Supreme Court does not have to decide this case. It could simply leave it aside. And that is very tempting in a case like this, which is so incredibly fraught with public interest.
MARTÍNEZ: I love how you said it, though - if they decide to decide this case. Mitchell Epner is a former federal prosecutor and a partner at the New York-based law firm KTAP. Mitchell, thank you.
EPNER: Thank you for having me.
(SOUNDBITE OF THE SOUL'S RELEASE'S "ELSKA MIN") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
