Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2005. Photo / Getty Images
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell in 2005. Photo / Getty Images
A US judge weighing whether to unseal sworn testimony given by Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime associate of the late disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, has suggested that the socialite "may be a victim as well".
The British heiress is urging a panel of judges in a federal appeals court in New York to overturn a lower court decision to make public the documents, which Maxwell claims will jeopardise her ability to defend criminal charges that she enabled Epstein's sexual abuse of girls.
Maxwell, 58, who is in a Brooklyn prison awaiting trial, has pleaded not guilty to charges she helped the billionaire recruit and groom underage girls as young as 14 years old to engage in illegal sexual acts in the mid-1990s.
The evidence in question relates to a deposition she gave in 2016 in a civil case brought by Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who says the late billionaire forced her to have sex with Prince Andrew, and others, when she was 17. The Duke of York denies all allegations.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre during an interview with BBC's Panorama programme. Screenshot / BBC
Prosecutors at the Southern District of New York allege Maxwell committed perjury during her testimony by claiming she had no knowledge of the abuse, charges she denies.
The depositions are Maxwell's only on-the-record account of her association with Epstein and his sex-trafficking ring. Her lawyers argue it was given under an expectation of confidentiality that had been agreed to by both sides in the dispute.
Parts of it were unsealed by a judge last year and another tranche was made public in July.
David Boies, attorney for Giuffre, argued in court on Tuesday (Wednesday NZT) that it was "unfair" only selective portions of the documents had been unsealed.
"People reading it don't have the entire context," he said, arguing that the reputation of Giuffre, who sued Maxwell for defamation after she claimed she was lying about her abuse, was at stake.
"It will prejudice our client if the public is given a misleading view," he added.
Jeffrey Epstein in 2017 when he was registered as a sex offender. Photo / AP
Judge Rosemary Pooler questioned why the remainder of the evidence needed to be made public if Giuffre's lawsuit had already been settled.
"Ms Maxwell may be a victim as well, is that right?" she asked, alluding to Maxwell's upcoming criminal trial.
Transcripts were designated "confidential" and subject to a protective order, however, they came to be in the hands of the US government.
Maxwell's lawyers have tried to claim that the trove of documents - which could expose fresh details about her sex life as well as her relation to powerful figures accused of taking part in the abuse of the late billionaire's victims - would result in "substantial negative media publicity and speculation in an internet world".
Maxwell in a car driven by Britain's Prince Andrew in 2000. Photo / AP
The Second US Circuit Court of Appeals will decide either to confirm their unsealing or reject the ruling by US District Judge Loretta Preska.
"The documents at issue have been improperly sealed for years - in a way that allowed Mr Epstein, Ms Maxwell, and others' abuse of young girls to go on unchallenged and unpunished, and allowed a legal system that protected perpetrators over victims to go unquestioned," attorney Christine Walz wrote in the legal brief opposing the appeal.
Giuffre is one of Epstein's most visible public accusers, and believes the public have a right to see Maxwell's deposition, which came from Giuffre's civil defamation lawsuit.
Tuesday's hearing will also address a second Maxwell appeal, from criminal Judge Alison Nathan's refusal to modify a protective order and let her access confidential materials produced by the government.
Maxwell's lawyers hope to use those materials to convince Judge Preska not to unseal the deposition, saying the judge deserved to know "just how prosecutors obtained the deposition material and who turned it over to them".
Prosecutors countered that Maxwell has shown no need for the materials, and that her appeal was a "thinly veiled attempt" to have the appeals court declare they gathered evidence illegally.
