Tipsheet

Ghislaine Maxwell's Lawyers Say She Should be Released from Prison, Likens Her Case to Cosby's

Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers are arguing that the court ruling that freed Bill Cosby from prison this week can also be applied to the British socialite's case. 

Lawyers sent a letter to a Manhattan federal judge Friday claiming that Maxwell's situation is similar to the one Cosby was in because both were immunized after striking a deal with prosecutors being charged.

Cosby was released Wednesday after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors violated his rights by not upholding their promise not to charge him of drugging and sexually assaulting Andrea Constand in 2004.

He was convicted in 2018 and spent nearly three years of a three- to 10-year sentence in prison before he was released.

Maxwell's lawyers allege that their client is also covered by an agreement assuring that she would not be prosecuted. They said Jeffrey Epstein signed such an agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida in 2007.

“As in Cosby, the government is trying to renege on its agreement and prosecute Ms. Maxwell over 25 years later for the exact same offenses for which she was granted immunity,” the lawyers wrote, according to the New York Post. “This is not consistent with principles of fundamental fairness.”

Maxwell is charged with the recruitment of teenage girls for Epstein to sexually assault between 1994 and 2004. She pleaded not guilty and is held in federal custody in Manhattan, awaiting trial set for November.

Epstein made the deal with prosecutors in exchange for pleading guilty to prostitution charges in Florida. In April, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan ruled that the agreement did not apply to co-conspirators or Manhattan prosecutors.

Cosby’s deal in 2005 resulted in him testifying in a civil lawsuit by Constand, leading to a settlement worth around $3 million. Prosecutors used the testimony, where Cosby admitted he used to offer sedatives to women he wanted to have sex with, against him in the case. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that they such actions were not permitted, and thus, overturned the conviction.