In a letter on Friday, her team of attorneys asked Judge Alison J. Nathan to dismiss the sex trafficking charges against her, claiming that she, like Cosby, was promised that she wouldn’t be prosecuted under a deal that Jeffrey Epstein was given in 2010.
‘Dear Judge Nathan,
‘We respectfully submit this letter to bring the Court’s attention to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in which the court vacated Mr. Cosby’s conviction and sentence.
‘Ms Maxwell’s case presents a similar situation. The government failed to abide by its promise not to prosecute.
Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney claims she should be let out of jail now because Bill Cosby has been freed, claiming she was promised she wouldn’t be prosecuted in a round-about-way when Jeffrey Epstein got his sweetheart deal in 2010
‘Ms Maxwell for the offenses for which she was immunized by the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement,’ the letter says.
Cosby was freed on Wednesday because of a promise a prosecutor made in 2005 that he would not be charged. He went on to incriminate himself in a civil case and another prosecutor, years later, used those remarks to charge him.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that it was unconstitutional and that had he not thought he was beyond reproach, he wouldn’t have made the incriminating remarks.
Writing for The New York Daily News on Thursday, Maxwell’s appellate lawyer David Oscar Markus, said prosecutors in New York should never have gone after her because years earlier, a different prosecutor in Florida promised Epstein in a deal that he wouldn’t charge his ‘co-conspirators.’ Markus is shown in April at court
Writing for The New York Daily News on Thursday, Maxwell’s appellate lawyer David Oscar Markus, said prosecutors in New York should never have gone after her because years earlier, a different prosecutor in Florida promised Epstein in a deal that he wouldn’t charge his ‘co-conspirators.’
Maxwell wasn’t named as one of the co-conspirators and it is in a different state that she is facing sex trafficking charges now.
But Markus argues it’s another example of people not being able to trust prosecutors at their word.
‘If a prosecutor promises something, he should be bound by his word — just like the rest of us,’ he wrote.
In 2010, Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from an underage prostitute in Palm Beach.
As part of his deal, he served one year in ‘prison’ – he was allowed to go to his office every day – and prosecutors promised not to charge his three unnamed ‘co-conspirators’.
It was a deal given to him Alex Acosta, who went on to become Trump’s Labor Secretary.
Writing on Thursday, Markus said: ‘This opinion and reasoning applies directly to Ghislaine Maxwell’s case.
‘In her case, Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty and struck a bargain with the prosecutors in Miami: In exchange for pleading guilty in state court, the U.S. attorney’s office agreed that it would not prosecute any of his alleged co-conspirators,’ Markus wrote.
Epstein was given a deal in 2010 that his co-conspirators wouldn’t be charged if he served a year
‘But she should not have to fight her case at trial and her case should be thrown out, just like Cosby’s has been, because prosecutors promised Epstein when he pleaded guilty that they would not prosecute her.
‘The Cosby case reaffirms that a prosecutor is bound to act with integrity and the public must be able to rely on his word.
‘What a concept,’ he wrote.
Maxwell is due to go on trial later this summer.
She has pleaded not guilty and has always, in civil court too, protested her innocence.
Cosby was freed by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court which ruled it was unfair that in 2005, a prosecutor promised him he wouldn’t be charged for sexually assaulting Andrea Constand.
As a result of that promise, Cosby, the court ruled, went on to incriminate himself in a civil deposition.
The incriminating remarks he made were then used by a different prosecutor to charge him in 2015.
The court ruled that Cosby had his constitutional rights violated by the false promise.
Others like Harvey Weinstein say his release could help them for different reasons.
One part of Cosby’s appeal was that the prosecution at his trial used five witnesses to testify about his character, even though they weren’t involved in the actual charges at hand.
The same tactic was used by prosecutors at Weinstein’s trial in 2020. He protested it, saying they shouldn’t have been allowed to testify.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not rule on the issue in its decision, instead focusing only on the promise that was made to Cosby.
But Cosby’s team – and Weinstein’s – believe the fact he got out sets a precedent for others.
‘It’s a major issue. What we have always said is how can you bring women in from 30 years ago who had nothing to do with the trial to say something happened
‘We were not allowed to examine them on the witness stand. This sets a precedent for so many cases. Even Harvey Weinstein now are using our same strategy.
‘They say look the people who testified had nothing to do with the accusers.
‘Mr. Cosby’s case sets a precedent for the country. It’s going to be talked about.
‘It changes case law,’ Andrew Wyatt, Cosby’s rep, said on Thursday outside his house.