Ghislaine Maxwell Fights to Stop Document Release

in a civil case. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who has been covering the Maxwell case that give us the background on these documents. So this is a prolonged involved story goes back to there was a young woman named Virginia Robert Gufrey, and she says that when she was sixteen years old, she encounters Gawayne Maxwell at mar Lago. Her dad worked there as a maintenance man.

He gets her a job at the spa. She's handing out towels and a lovely woman British woman comes up to her and sees her reading a book about massage and offers her a job working for this wealthy man who wants to looking for a private massuit. She said she was sixteen years old at the time, so she goes to the mansion through if it turns out she's introduced Jeffrey Epstein and he immediately and Maxwell, she alleges forced her to perform sex acts with the two of

them present, and she became a sex slave. She and alleges that was in thousands. So then she ends up trying to join a lawsuit with victims of Epstein after Epstein gets his secret plea deal, and she makes some comments about Maxwell publicly and Maxwell comes back and issues a press release in January twenty sixteen. She makes statements and says that this woman is a liar. It provoked

or prompts a defamation lawsuit. Gufrey sues Maxwell for defamation and Maxwell gave testimony under oath questioned about this steps trafficking. Guffrey was very very aggressive. Her lawyers included David Boys and this guy Bradley Edwards and as Pottinger in Florida, and they really went to question Maxwell at people that worked at the Epstein home in Palm beach, all kinds

of allegations. So Gufrase alleged was forced to have sex, that she was trafficed to these famous men, including alleged princes passively, Prince Andrew, she's named him, and Maxwell denies it. So what happens is this stuff was all settled right on the eve of trial. The tifteen lawsuits got settled right before trial, and then the documents were understealed. So how did all those sealed documents get unsealed before Jeffrey Epstein's suicide. But after Epstein gets prosecuted, the Miami Herald

goes to ask why is this sealed? And the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Court of Appeals directed that the judge who had originally had the lawsuits didn't properly seal. He shouldn't have properly sealed everything. It was improper to keep all the documents from the public. And so that's

how we get to this point. The circuit orders last August, they order all these documents and seals, and all the documents start hitting the dockets and the next day Jeffrey Epstein is found dead in his jail cell of an apparent suicide. So the document release was sent back to a new federal judge to provide over what's properly unsealed

and what should not be properly unsealed. And you can imagine there's all these implications for other people whose names may can't come up, other victims who allegedly were there when the trafficking occurred or were also traffic who may not want to have their names come out. So there's like a Jane Doe one, and a Jane Doe two, and multiple Jane does and also John does. So Judge Prescott, July twenty three, she held a hearing after you know, Maxwell has now been charged and says, okay, let's go

and have a hearing about what you get unsealed. So she ordered the first transfer documents to be unsealed last Thursday night. So that's how we get to this testimony. Maxwell was questioned under oath. The government used the testimony as a basis they say she lied and committed to counts of perjury for lying when she claimed she was never present when Epstein may have been sexually abusing underage girls,

nor had she seen anything like it. She was not aware of that activity illegal activity, nor was President ever witnessing it, so that testimony remains under steal because she went for an emergency motion and asked the Quarter of Appeals to again stop the release Thursday night. So that was on the eleventh hour stop to that part. But the rest of the documents hit the docket starting at like nine thirty on Thursday night. How many documents are

already out. Two thousand pages were released in August, so that's when we started first seeing these allegations of possible you know, Prince Andrew's involvement. Some captains of industry were implicated, some senators, some former presidents uh their allegations. There were flight records of people who were on the plane to

Epstein's Island in the Virgin Islands. What's her legal argument to stop the release of the deposition, Well, I mean it's it's unusual because the you know Federal with Heel's Court already ruled we should be un sealed, and then the judge was ruling she reviewed it and said she didn't see a problem. But now Maxwell is making this argument that oh, I'm under indictment, so my testimony, if any potential juror reads it, I won't be able to get a fair trial and they'll judge me based on

this testimony coming out now. So she'd won a temporary stay, but the circuit told her they want to hear oral arguments on September twenty two, and in the meantime, Judge Loretta Prescot, who is presiding over the un sealing the federal judge in Manhattan, she's ordered them to get ready for another state of documents. So on Thursday night we saw about fifty documents with hundreds of pages of evidence coming out um, including Gufrey's deposition which she gave under oath.

There were excerpts that had been under steal, and we saw a little bit more about that. It seems a little disingenuous for Maxwell to want to conceal this deposition in the papers. When she tried to get the judge to agree to let her lawyers openly identify her accusers in public. Yeah, that was It's It's interesting because her civil lawyers in the defamation lawsuits are also part of the team that's defending her in this criminal case. And I guess it makes sense that these lawyers from Denver

have great expertise. They know all that what's out there against her, but um, it was an interesting tactic. They wanted to be able to identify the accusers by name. It's called protective orders, and they're becoming really common nowadays for federal prosecutors to say that the lawyers will give you the evidence, but you are prohibited from releasing it to anyone and you could face criminal prosecution if you

leak it to one. So that's a way of keeping things out of anyone else's hands, and it's just about the lawyer's eyes only. But what they wanted to do is they would see the names of the victims, and they wanted to say the names of any victim that had possibly in a tweet or on a Reddit posting said oh yeah, hashtag me too, I was an Epstein victim, or I agree with you he's a terrible person, or whatever. They wanted to be able. They said that was in the public forum, and they wanted to be able to

name those people. The judge in the criminal case said no, but it's an interesting um argument. And the thing that was also interesting that Judge Prescus stated in her ruling she was kind of surprised by Maxwell trying to keep her testimony from becoming public basically, Presca said, when asked about all this activity, she basically denied knowing anything that's going on. So like, how bad could it be if she basically doesn't answer questions or denies anything. What did

you learn from the documents that were released already? You know, it's it's dizzy and uh, mind boggling, how intense all this,

you know, these what these girls went through. I mean I had read most of the stuff before, but when you go back, one of the things Virginia Jufrey wrote was called The Billionaire Playboys Club, and it was like a novel that she serialized or novelized her life, and it was it's like stunning too when you read, you know, sixteen year old going to the South of France for Naomi Campbell's birthday party, and what happens when you go there when all these potentates and wealthy men are there.

And she said she was, you know, gots struck by how amazing she was with all these celebrities wearing a pretty dress that the night ends up getting her farmed out to a wealthy man as a friend of Jeffrey Epstein. It's so tawdry and it's it's really kind of you know how Epstein had a lot of connections, a lot of friends. There he is kissing Naomi Campbell. There's delay Maxwell kissing Naomi Campbell Hello friends and getting invited to her birthday party in the south of France in Santo Pay.

But you can kind of see how these poor kids might have gotten. Some of them came from very broken homes or runaways or came from troubled homes, and Epstein and Maxwell allegedly kind of hooked up on those people

to lure them into their world. We also saw a very unusual thing, which was Maxwell's lawyers claimed that after in the last ten years, Maxwell had not had any communication with Epstein and they proffered that to the judge and asking for bail, that she had nothing to do with him and she hasn't spoken to him for ten years.

And what was released by Judge Prescott also on Thursday were a series of emails that Epstein traded with Maxwell in January, basically him telling her how to handle this flare up of Geuffrey making these allegations against her being ef steamed, madam, you know, hold your head up high, go to parties. These women are they're just gossip mongers. Um, it's it's pretty interesting. They seem to have had a very close relationship. Even still despite what the lawyer claimed

that it had been ten years. Here was January, these emails were exchanged. Since the second Circuit already ordered these documents released before, what are the chances that they'll now say no, don't release them. Yeah, that's a good, very good question. And what the circuit did originally and last year it's ordered much of the documents. There was apparently some just some agreements that the document certain documents already got released. That's how we got those two thousand last August.

But they also directed there were some documents that should go back to the trial judge or a lower court judge, which is how PRESCO got it to determine what should be you know, filtered, what should be redacted, What was anything named anybody that had never come public before. So

it really is going to be interesting. I don't know exactly who's on the panel, and I think we know two judges and um, it remains to be seen if the three judges on the in the panel how they view this latest attempt by her, because they've already and they also have the comments Judge Presco has made. She's done the review in camera looking at Maxwell's testimony, and

she said, I don't have a problem releasing this. And then she also argued, Uh, the judgment noted in her ruling that Maxwell had been charged on July second, and yet her lawyers didn't bother coming to her and saying, oh, no, we have a criminal case. Now halt the release of these documents until like last week. So she's like, what, what took you three weeks to come to me? Um? She called it an eleventh hour last effort. Just update us on where Maxwell is right now and are there

any more attempts on her part to get released? So far, we haven't seen anything like that. Um. If she's in the Brooklyn lock up and by Sunset Park, by the b QUE, it's probably kind of grim. She probably will make another effort. The judge is basically said, because of her ties, because she's a you know, French citizen, she could go to France and flee and then she couldn't be extradited. So, um, you know, the next step we

have is oral arguments in September. I suspect that her lawyers are going to make a full throated the sense of her on both tacks, you know, both the guffre versus Maxwell lawsuits, civil suits as well as you know, making filings. I mean, what we saw was really unusual. It was this effort to the bid Bibo defense lawyers

to name the victims, which is pretty unheard of. And the judge kind of noted that that victims are you know, accorded a certain amount of privacy, and you know, it might even seem like an attempt to quiet the women of the female accusers. A lot of these defense tactics like naming the alleged victims seem manipulative and tawdry, and if they're worried about pre trial publicity influencing potential jurors, these tactics certainly wouldn't endear them to potential jurors. Yeah,

I I agree with you. It doesn't look, um, particularly endearing for a defendant to go after people who your

young women who were you know, thirteen fourteen years of age. Um. But I guess you know, we certainly saw that out of Epstein, where his lawyers argued that these were transactions with young women who were basically prostitutes, and the judge who had that case, raised his eyebrow and said that these are underage girls, so it doesn't matter if they supposedly were engaging in which you call like legitimate transactions or consensual. How can it be consensual when they're underage.

You don't have consent when you're fifteen. So um, it remains to be seen. You know. I guess it's a fine narrow line they're gonna have to tread. Maybe they're hoping that they'll just do a full throttle defensive galine at before trial, and then maybe the judge won't be endeared, but at least they'll be defending her their client, And then maybe they're hoping that any potential jurors will forget by the time they get to jury selection in July

of next year. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show, Pat, That's what is Sha Hurtado, Bloomberg Legal reporter. A federal appeals court has thrown out Joe Harsnayev's death sentence in the Boston marathon bombing. A three judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new penalty phase trial on whether the twenty seven year old Sir Nieves should be executed for the attack that killed three people

and wounded more than two hundred sixty others. The panel said there was massive media coverage and the trial judge did not adequately screen jurors for potential biases. Sir Nieve will spend the rest of his life in prison, but it will be up to the U. S. Attorney's Office to decide whether to appeal the decision or retry the death penalty portion of the case. My guest is Robert Bloom, a professor at Boston College Law School. The appellate court

said the jurors weren't properly screened. How so, what problems did they find with the screening. Well, one of the major problems was the use of social media, especially twitters or read twitters or whatever they call it. And apparently one juror tweeted that he called there of garbage and the judge, who asked a lot of questions about media,

didn't really get into the social media. So the appellate Court wanted to make sure that the jury which which decided on sentencing was fear and they said that the judge should have done more. The judge did a good bit, but he should have done more to make sure that nobody was using social media or was reading newspapers. In addition, one of the jurors said he didn't stay at home during the time that they were looking. He had a shelter in place, and he apparently said he didn't, but

he actually did. So there's some indication of a lack of fairness given bias of those particular drawers. Can a judge really find out if someone is lying in that respect? I mean, how can I judge monitor social media? Isn't up to the lawyers, the defense and the prosecution to bring forth some things that might be troubling about a juror.

There's just so much out there these days. And what what's supposed to occur as the jurors are seated is something called wada, and the judge will get questions from both sides and we'll ask those questions. There's no there's very little investigative peace. The lawyers don't know who the

drawers are going to be. It's a big pool. This judge also had questionnaires for the drawers, which both attorneys got, so so there's not an investigative The investigation comes from asking questions and you hope the drawers are telling the truth. One of the primary defense are events was that it was error to even hold the trial in Boston. What did the appellate courts say about that? They only focused in on the sentencing hearing, So I guess they concluded

that holding trial itself not the sentencing hearing. By the way, the sentencing hearing is the continuation of the trial. They felt that was okay. Apparently they described the media attention as unrivaled in American legal history, and the O. J. Simpson trial came to mind, because with the O. J. Simpson trial, people were watching every minute of it across the country. You're in Boston. Was it a microcosm of

that in Boston for this trial? Absolutely there were news reports Daley, and you know, initially was the horror of the marathon bombing in the capture of Tanara. Almost on a daily basis, deal was news media reports about the marathon. So there was a great deal of publicity. Certainly there was all kinds of media attention, TV radio, a lot of it. If this decision stands, the defense will try to move the case out of Boston again, most likely, so seven years later, is the same bias evident in

Boston as it was before, Well, it's obviously less. The heelicourt didn't say you can't have it in Boston. They just said, if you decide to have it anywhere, make sure you ask enough questions so that decision makers, the jurors will act fairly. In a death penalty VOI dear, doesn't that always get you a jury that is perhaps more pro law then you would ordinarily get because they're able to say, yes, I'd give someone the death penalty. You know, it's it's more the notion of considering it.

If they say they adamantly against the death penalty, then obviously they would be challenged and they wouldn't be allowed to sit on the second time around. What can a judge do to try to ensure that there are unbiased jurors. Well, he certainly can ask more questions about social media. He can ask questions about whether or not somebody was sheltered in place, so they can do a good deal more of that kind of situation. By the way, they judge

didn't do a bad job. He had a long questionnaire and what the just to screen out a bunch of durs and then many questions were asked, but what there took a while, but there were still some problems. According to the Court of Appeals, So Sir Nayev's attorneys, in trying to avoid the death sentence, argued that his older brother had orchestrated the attack and influenced his younger brother. Yeah,

especially during the sentencing part of the trial. One of the defenses arguments was that he was under the influence of his older brother, so that the relationship with the older brother was certainly an important part of the sentencing piece, So tell us more about the brother well. The judge refused to allow the notion that the brother was alleged and being investigated for two thousand and twelve murder and um.

The appellate court thought that was important, especially if one of the arguments that the defense was making that he was under the influence of his brother. And if you are under the influence of your brother and you know that your brother has killed in the past, are alleged to have killed in the past, then isn't that increase the influence peace? And the appellate court thought that the

judge made an error in not allowing that information. In judges are so reluctant to move trials for obvious reasons. But do you think the judge in this case really should have moved the trial? Well, um, you know, a more apt example would probably be the Timothy McVeigh case, where the trial judge did not have the trial in Oklahoma City. I believe it was moved to Colorado. The marathon in Boston is like the Fourth of July apple

Pie and the Red Sox. It's very big here in Boston, So messing with this tradition was upsetting too many in Greater Boston. M Some legal observers say that the U. S. Attorney might go straight to the Supreme Court with an appeal. Well, if they do that, okay, I'm not sure the Supreme Court will take it because, as you read the decision, there's a lot of facts that are that are utilized by the appellate court, and usually the Supreme Court doesn't want to get involved with all the facts that the

appellate court addressed. So my best guess is that it won't be appealed to the Supreme Court at any rate. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court, and for some reason which I doubt, the Supreme court were to take it. Then if they overturn the first circuit, then the death penalty would still be on the table. On the other hand, if they don't appeal it, the U. S. Attorney with possibly the Justice Department in Washington being involved,

can retry SNAr with regard to the sentencing piece. Automatically, you can do it. The Peller Court said they throughout the initial one, but they said you could do it again if you wanted, and is it likely that they will do it again. The victims would have to relive this all over again if there's a retrial of the penalty phase. There was a letter published at the time of the sentencing phase, or as it was about to begin. The Richards family who lost I believe it was an

eight year old son. A younger daughter I think she was five or six lost the leg. The nature of the letter was, please don't give him the death penalty because this thing will be appealed and appealed and appealed, and we want to get it behind us. And what they predicted was absolutely correct. In addition, Greater Boston community we had to relive the horror of that day. If the government had taken the death penalty off the table. He would have admitted guilt, he would have gotten a

life sentence. He would have been sent for the rest of his natural life to Supermax and Flawrence, Colorado, which is where he is now. And that would have been that and we wouldn't have to relive it. Instead, you know, the story of the whole marathon bombing turned into the story after the bombing was about courageous police and bystanders and the medical community. And everybody was wearing shirts as a Boston Strong, and the Watertown police will be wearing

shirts calling the Watertown Strong. It was just it was just great to see how the community was coming together. There was an unbelievable memorial right across us from the Boston Public Library. It made a horrible story so much better because it ended up being a story of courage in the community coming together. And I just as a citizen of Boston, as the product of the Boston Public Schools, I don't want to see this, this horrible event relived again.

And many of the victims, certainly the Richard's family, feel the same way. At least they've expressed that some victims don't feel that way. And then you have these I understand. I totally understand that, you know, and I wasn't a victim, so I'm not criticized them in the least. I'm largely talking as a citizen of grade of Boston. Do you think that President Trump's statements will influence the U S.

Attorney in Boston to to retry the penalty phase? The U S. Attorney is answerable to the Justice Department Attorney General. Bar appears to reflect the sentiments of President Trump, so there's a possibility that he will order bar the U. S. Attorney in Massachusetts, who by the way, is a Trump appointment, to redo the sentencing hearing. I think that would probably, although you know, I don't know about the politics of it.

I think that probably might be their approach as opposed to appealing to the Supreme Court because or maybe they would because that would take a long time, and if they appealed it to the Supreme Court, the election in November would be over by the time they decided it. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Laws Show. That's Robert bloom a professor at Boston College Law School. I'm June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg