Latest news with #FederalRulesofCriminalProcedure
Newsweek
28-07-2025
- Newsweek
How Ghislaine Maxwell Might Reduce Her Prison Term
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for her part in the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking scandal, could be looking to do a deal with the Department of Justice (DOJ) that may lead to an early release. Her meetings with U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on July 24 and 25 have sparked speculation that she may be cooperating with the DOJ's continuing investigation into the Epstein scandal. Her projected release date is July 17, 2037. Why It Matters Epstein was a wealthy financier and convicted sex offender who authorities said died by suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Following her December 2021 conviction on five counts related to sex trafficking and conspiracy, she was sentenced in June 2022 by U.S. District Judge Alison J. Nathan, and fined $750,000. She is serving the federal sentence at FCI Tallahassee in Florida. Maxwell has two principal legal avenues that could lead to an early release: cooperating with the DOJ investigation and presidential clemency, in the form of a pardon or commutation. Ghislaine Maxwell attends the 4th Annual WIE Symposium on September 20, 2013, in New York City. Ghislaine Maxwell attends the 4th Annual WIE Symposium on September 20, 2013, in New York City. Paul Zimmerman/WireImage What To Know In Maxwell's case, her sentence commutation or pardon would likely be highly controversial given the nature of her conviction and public attention surrounding Epstein's network. The question is what she might offer prosecutors that could warrant such leniency. Given her close association with Epstein and ties to influential figures, prosecutors could find any information that helps uncover additional victims, accomplices, or conspirators to be of great value. That value and timeliness of this cooperation, along with Maxwell's truthfulness and the public safety implications, are key factors the DOJ and courts would weigh when considering a sentence reduction. Cooperation deals are usually struck before sentencing, but post-conviction agreements do happen, especially in sensitive cases. The DOJ can request sentence reductions for inmates who provide substantial, credible assistance, though such deals are often sealed. Presidential pardons or commutations, while rare and politically fraught, are another possible avenue, particularly in high-profile cases. How Maxwell's DOJ Deal Could Look Maxwell could seek relief under Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows for sentence reduction if the DOJ certifies post-sentencing cooperation. On July 24 and 25, 2025, she met with Blanche and answered questions on approximately 100 individuals without invoking the Fifth Amendment—prompting speculation she may be cooperating. However, prosecutors require new, credible, and actionable intelligence to justify a Rule 35(b) motion. The DOJ has no obligation to request a reduction unless Maxwell's assistance produces concrete prosecutorial benefits like indictments or arrests. Her credibility, damaged by past perjury allegations, remains a key obstacle. As seen in Cohen's case, Trump's ex-lawyer, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and lying to Congress. He cooperated extensively with the DOJ and testified in multiple investigations. While his assistance was noted, he still received a three-year prison sentence due to the seriousness of his offenses—showing that even extensive cooperation may not guarantee sentencing relief if deemed unhelpful. How Maxwell's Trump Deal Could Look Maxwell may also pursue presidential clemency—a pardon would clear her conviction, while a commutation would shorten her sentence. Such actions are rare, especially in politically sensitive cases involving serious crimes. President Donald Trump publicly addressed the possibility of pardoning Maxwell on July 25, 2025, stating: "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about." The remark came as he departed the White House en route to Scotland, and although the president affirmed he has the legal authority to grant clemency, he clarified that he had not seriously considered such action in Maxwell's case. Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Marcus, has expressed hope for clemency, despite such decisions undergoing DOJ review and facing intense public scrutiny; but described the meetings with Blanche as "very productive," while the DOJ stated further details would be shared "at the appropriate time." What People Are Saying Attorney Mark Zaid, an expert in national security law, told Newsweek: "There is no reason whatsoever to believe a word that comes out of Ms. Maxwell's mouth," citing alleged past perjury and her role in Epstein's crimes. Prosecutors in her 2021 trial said Maxwell had made a number of false statements under oath. "The defendant's willingness to brazenly lie under oath about her conduct, including some of the conduct charged in the indictment, strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable for her crimes," prosecutors wrote at the time in a pretrial motion, according to NBC News. Laurie Levenson, a professor of criminal law, criminal procedure and ethical lawyering at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, echoed Zaid's doubts, noting in an email to Newsweek that: "The information would have to be corroborated, and the prosecution would have to have confidence in the defendant's credibility. Obviously, all of this will be a problem with Maxwell." Levenson said: "It is very likely that what she has to say is already in the investigation file or was presented at her trial." What Happens Next Maxwell's chances of early release hinge on the quality and impact of her cooperation or a rare act of presidential clemency. Both mechanisms must satisfy strict legal criteria—credible new information, prosecutorial willingness, judicial approval, and, in the case of clemency, executive endorsement. The value of Maxwell's cooperation relies on the newness and reliability of her information, and whether prosecutors deem it sufficient to merit a Rule 35(b) request. However, such cooperation carries inherent risk, including retaliation fears, reputational damage, or legal instability. Not all insiders survive these trade-offs, and the government retains almost complete discretion over whether and to what extent relief is granted. Whether Maxwell will pursue either path remains uncertain—as of now, no formal deal has been confirmed.
News18
24-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Epstein Grand Jury Files To Stay Sealed As US Judge Rejects Trump Administration Request
Last Updated: US District Judge ruled that the Trump administration's bid to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts from the 2005-07 probe failed to meet legal exceptions under federal rules A federal judge in Florida has denied the Trump administration's request to unseal grand jury records from early investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, marking a legal and political setback for those seeking to publicly expose details of the disgraced financier's past. US District Judge Robin Rosenberg, presiding in West Palm Beach, rejected the Justice Department's motion to release transcripts from federal grand jury proceedings held in 2005 and 2007. These records stem from the initial sex trafficking probe that ultimately resulted in Epstein's controversial 2008 plea deal, which critics say allowed him to escape serious federal charges. 'The court's hands are tied – a point that the Government concedes," Rosenberg wrote in the judgment, adding, 'Eleventh Circuit law does not permit this court to grant the government's request." The ruling underscores the limits of US federal law when it comes to overriding grand jury secrecy. Judge Rosenberg said the motion did not meet any of the 'extraordinary exceptions" that would justify making the material public. Federal grand juries operate in secret, and their transcripts are generally shielded from public view under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The department has faced mounting pressure from Trump allies and far-right influencers, many of whom believe the Epstein case conceals a deeper conspiracy involving powerful elites. The Justice Department last week acknowledged that Epstein did not have a list of clients and stated that no further files related to his case would be made public. A two-page memo, bearing the logos of the FBI and DOJ, but unsigned, said the department had determined that no 'further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted." A Controversial Plea Deal The grand jury records at the centre of the Florida request relate to the Miami US attorney's office's original investigation into Epstein. That inquiry ended with a secretive 2007 non-prosecution agreement under which Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution. He served just 13 months in a Florida jail. Legal experts had pointed out that even if unsealed, grand jury transcripts typically contain limited details because prosecutors present only enough evidence to obtain indictments and do not introduce the full scope of their investigations. Epstein was arrested again in 2019 in New York on federal sex trafficking charges. He died in custody a month later, officially ruled a suicide. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 for helping Epstein abuse underage girls and is now serving a 20-year prison sentence. Political Fallout And Congressional Action The fight over access to sealed records has escalated on Capitol Hill. On the same day the judge issued the ruling, a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Justice Department for Epstein-related files. The full committee also issued a subpoena for Ghislaine Maxwell to testify before committee officials in August. Meanwhile, Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has called on Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the case's handling. The controversy has also been stoked by the administration itself. In February, far-right influencers were invited to the White House and handed binders labelled 'The Epstein Files: Phase 1" and 'Declassified." However, the contents largely consisted of previously available documents. Though the Florida bid has been denied, the parallel request to unseal grand jury materials in Manhattan remains pending. Whether that motion succeeds may depend on different circuit precedents, and the court's interpretation of what 'transparency" truly demands. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Department of justice Jeffrey Epstein Trump administration view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
23-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
US judge blocks Trump administration's first bid to unseal Epstein case files
US District Judge Robin Rosenberg on Wednesday rejected the Justice Department's request to release transcripts from the 2005–2007 federal investigation into Epstein — a probe that ended in a controversial plea deal allowing the financier to avoid serious prison time despite mounting allegations of sex trafficking.'This Court does not have the power to unseal grand jury records in instances not covered by the criminal procedure rule,' Rosenberg wrote in a judgment. 'Eleventh Circuit law does not permit this Court to grant the Government's request; the Court's hands are tied — a point the Government concedes.'advertisementThe Justice Department last week asked the judge to release records to quell a storm among supporters of President Donald Trump who believe there was a conspiracy to protect Epstein's clients, conceal videos of crimes being committed and other evidence. However, the judge ruled that the Justice Department's arguments failed to meet the narrow exceptions outlined in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs grand jury secrecy. A 2020 decision by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Florida, leaves little room for judicial discretion, she noted.'Neither argument advanced by the DOJ complies with that exception to the rule,' Rosenberg transcripts at issue relate to the first federal sex crimes probe of Epstein, conducted by prosecutors in Miami. That case ended with Epstein pleading guilty to lesser state charges in 2007 and serving just 13 months in Trump, whose past social ties to Epstein have come under renewed focus, has sought to distance himself from the disgraced financier, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial. Investigators concluded he killed himself. Maxwell was later convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in case garnered significant attention because of Epstein and Maxwell's links to famous people, including royals, presidents, and billionaires. It also led to some of the biggest conspiracy theories animating Trump's base.- Ends(With inputs from Associated Press)Must Watch
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House panel tees up vote on Jeffrey Epstein resolution
The House Rules Committee late Thursday night advanced a resolution calling for — but not legally requiring — the DOJ to release of some information related to Jeffrey Epstein, as a number of Republicans express anger at the Trump administration's handling of the saga. The panel voted 9-4 along party lines to send the measure to the House floor, with Democrats objecting to the resolution being non-binding. It is unclear when leadership plans to stage a floor vote on the Epstein measure. House Rules Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) would make that announcement. Scalise later said he wasn't sure if there would be a vote next week. 'I haven't talked to Rules since they got out … so I can't tell you a time frame on it,' he said. Asked by The Hill if he would commit to putting the measure on the floor, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stopped short, telling reporters that he would evaluate the situation moving forward. 'We'll determine what happens with all that. There's a lot developing,' he said. 'The president made his statements this afternoon, he's asked the attorney general to release the information, I'm certain that she will, and everybody can make their own decisions about that.' 'We will see how all this develops,' he responded when pressed on the matter. 'We're in line with the White House, there's no daylight between us. We want transparency, and I think that will be delivered for the people.' The measure reads: 'Providing for the public release of certain documents, records, and communications related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.' It directs the Attorney General to make public 'all credible' documents, communications, and metadata related to the investigations into and prosecutions against Epstein and his convicted former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — providing considerable exceptions for information that could identify or depict victims, violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or is 'demonstrably false or unauthenticated.' The measure is a House resolution, and not a bill — meaning it will not go to the Senate and does not have the legal weight to force the Trump administration to comply. Pressed on that by Democrats in the committee, Foxx did not directly answer, saying it is a 'sound, good-faith resolution' and noting that Democrats, when they offered an Epstein-related measure several days ago, also did so in the form of a resolution rather than a bill. Rules committee member Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said if the information was not released, the panel would urge all relevant House committees to initiate an investigation into any obstruction, suppression, or delay in the release of the files. Ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) dismissed the resolution as a 'cover vote' without teeth that the panel's members advanced because they are taking heat over their vote earlier in the week against a Democratic-led amendment calling for the release of Epstein-related documents. He offered an amendment that would tee up a more forceful bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to require the DOJ to disclose Epstein documents, which Republicans promptly dismissed. If and when the measure comes to the floor, the procedural rule resolution that typically tees up debate and a final vote on legislation will instead 'deem' the measure passed — meaning members would vote only once on the resolution. As the panel prepared to advance the resolution, President Trump — who for over a week has called the Epstein matter a 'hoax' and fumed at his prominent supporters objecting to a DOJ decision to not release any more information on the sex offender — relented by saying on his website Truth Social he would direct Attorney General Pam Bondi 'to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.' The vote by the panel is the latest development in the Epstein saga, which has infiltrated Capitol Hill and fractured the Republican Party. The GOP is grappling with a push by the MAGA base to release the documents and an effort by Trump to end discussion on the issue. It also puts to bed a days-long saga that delayed action in the House on a package clawing back federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Republicans on the House Rules Committee huddled with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Scalise for nearly two hours on Thursday to discuss a path forward on the thorny matter that is the Epstein controversy. On Monday, Democrats on the House Rules Committee forced a vote on whether the full chamber should vote on an amendment compelling the release of the Epstein files. That effort failed 4-8 with only one Republican — Rep. Ralph Norman (S.C.) — voting in favor. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), another Republican on the panel, did not vote on the measure. Republicans on the panel who voted against the effort have since received blowback for their vote, in-part prompting Thursday night's vote. On Tuesday, Democrats made another attempt at forcing a vote on releasing the Epstein documents by urging the chamber to oppose a routine procedural vote which, if it failed, would have triggered a vote on publishing the files. All House Republicans voted together to defeat that effort. Democrats attempted the same procedural gambit overnight Thursday, which was similarly swatted down by Republicans in a 218-211 vote. Updated on July 18 at 1:16 a.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
18-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
House panel tees up vote on Jeffrey Epstein resolution
The House Rules Committee late Thursday night advanced a resolution calling for — but not legally requiring — the DOJ to release of some information related to Jeffrey Epstein, as a number of Republicans express anger at the Trump administration's handling of the saga. The panel voted 9-4 along party lines to send the measure to the House floor, with Democrats objecting to the resolution being non-binding. It is unclear when leadership plans to stage a floor vote on the Epstein measure. House Rules Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said that House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) would make that announcement. The measure reads: 'Providing for the public release of certain documents, records, and communications related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein.' It directs the Attorney General to make public 'all credible' documents, communications, and metadata related to the investigations into and prosecutions against Epstein and his convicted former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell — providing considerable exceptions for information that could identify or depict victims, violate the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or is 'demonstrably false or unauthenticated.' The measure is a House resolution, and not a bill — meaning it will not go to the Senate and does not have the legal weight to force the Trump administration to comply. Pressed on that by Democrats in the committee, Foxx did not directly answer, saying it is a 'sound, good-faith resolution' and noting that Democrats, when they offered an Epstein-related measure several days ago, also did so in the form of a resolution rather than a bill. Rules committee member Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) said if the information was not released, the panel would urge all relevant House committees to initiate an investigation into any obstruction, suppression, or delay in the release of the files. Ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) dismissed the resolution as a 'cover vote' without teeth that the panel's members advanced because they are taking heat over their vote earlier in the week against a Democratic-led amendment calling for the release of Epstein-related documents. He offered an amendment that would tee up a more forceful bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to require the DOJ to disclose Epstein documents, which Republicans promptly dismissed. If and when the measure comes to the floor, the procedural rule resolution that typically tees up debate and a final vote on legislation will instead 'deem' the measure passed — meaning members would vote only once on the resolution. As the panel prepared to advance the resolution, President Trump — who for over a week has called the Epstein matter a 'hoax' and fumed at his prominent supporters objecting to a DOJ decision to not release any more information on the sex offender — relented by saying on his website Truth Social he would direct Attorney General Pam Bondi 'to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.' The vote by the panel is the latest development in the Epstein saga, which has infiltrated Capitol Hill and fractured the Republican Party. The GOP is grappling with a push by the MAGA base to release the documents and an effort by Trump to end discussion on the issue. It also puts to bed a days-long saga that delayed action in the House on a package clawing back federal funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. Republicans on the House Rules Committee huddled with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Scalise for nearly two hours on Thursday to discuss a path forward on the thorny matter that is the Epstein controversy. On Monday, Democrats on the House Rules Committee forced a vote on whether the full chamber should vote on an amendment compelling the release of the Epstein files. That effort failed 4-8 with only one Republican — Rep. Ralph Norman (S.C.) — voting in favor. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), another Republican on the panel, did not vote on the measure. Republicans on the panel who voted against the effort have since received blowback for their vote, in-part prompting Thursday night's vote. On Tuesday, Democrats made another attempt at forcing a vote on releasing the Epstein documents by urging the chamber to oppose a routine procedural vote which, if it failed, would have triggered a vote on publishing the files. All House Republicans voted together to defeat that effort.
