Prince Andrew in the spotlight after Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction

Maxwell chose not to testify in her own trial, saying it was “not necessary” because the prosecution “had not proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt”. As a result, she was not questioned about her friendship with Andrew.

However, Maxwell could now try to cooperate with authorities — giving them potentially incriminating information she has about others — in an effort to reduce her sentence, legal experts said.

“Maxwell may have more to say on the whole subject now, after her conviction,” Nick Goldstone, chief of dispute resolution at international law firm Ince, told DailyExpertNews, although those discussions “take time to play out”. he added.

“If Maxwell has incriminating information and evidence regarding Prince Andrew or any other person who has participated in unlawful conduct in conjunction with Jeffrey Epstein, then I believe the Prince and everyone else have a lot to fear from a sentencing negotiation process.” Goldstone said. in an email.

“On the other hand, if Prince Andrew didn’t do anything wrong, he would have nothing to fear from Maxwell’s criminal negotiations.”

But, Gerry said, Andrew might be concerned if a sentence is negotiated in Maxwell’s case.

“Meaning negotiation can take place if she decides to give or has given information,” Gerry said. “A lot of people could be involved in this, including Prince Andrew. She certainly has nothing to lose as she faces a hefty sentence.”

Defendants have the most leverage to cooperate before being charged, and that’s how they come to favorable plea deals, said DailyExpertNews legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

“But it is possible in some circumstances to cooperate after conviction, although Maxwell will now have much less influence,” he said.

“I suspect she will do everything she can to reduce her sentence and cooperation is the only option now. Of course it all depends on what information she has.”

The government would of course be interested if it had incriminating information about Andrew, Toobin said, but there’s no reason to believe it does, he added, and Andrew has denied any inappropriate behaviour.

“Now that she has been convicted, she is a less valuable witness to the prosecution because she is more easily discredited as someone who is just trying to reduce her sentence,” Toobin said.

Giuffre: Maxwell didn’t act alone

Giuffre was not called as a witness to the prosecution or defense at Maxwell’s trial, but her name was mentioned several times in court.

Lawyers representing Giuffre welcomed Maxwell’s conviction in a statement late Wednesday. “This is a great day for justice and for Maxwell’s survivors. The jury’s verdict confirms the courage and dedication of our clients who for years stood against all odds to bring Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to justice,” said the US-based attorney David. guys.

“They have not acted, and could not have acted alone. The scope, magnitude and duration of their sex trafficking crimes depend on many rich and powerful associates and co-conspirators. They too are not above the law. “

“I hope today is not the end, but rather another step towards justice. Maxwell has not acted alone. Others must be held accountable. I am confident that they will,” she tweeted. .

One of Maxwell’s accusers, who went by the pseudonym “Kate” during the trial, said during the socialite’s trial that she was reluctant to cut contact with Maxwell and Epstein “because I had seen how connected they both were and I was scared.”

“Kate” said she always heard Maxwell talk to her about the socialite’s friends Prince Andrew and Donald Trump.

It’s no secret that Maxwell, the daughter of Czech-born newspaper mogul and former British lawmaker Robert Maxwell, who died in mysterious circumstances in 1991, moved in exclusive circles in both Britain and the United States.

A now infamous photo appears to show the prince with his arm around Giuffre’s waist, then Virginia Roberts, with Maxwell in the background.

In a BBC interview in November 2019, Andrew said he could not remember meeting Giuffre and suggested that a photo of the two had been tampered with.

legal battle

Prince Andrew’s lawyers have fought hard to get the case against him dropped. On Tuesday, they claimed that the US court hearing the civil lawsuit filed by Giuffre in August has no jurisdiction over the case.

A motion filed in the US District Court in Manhattan states: “Mrs. Giuffre claims she is a citizen of the state of Colorado, evidence shows she actually resides in Australia, where she has lived for the last nineteen years but two. .” The filing also asks the court to “order Ms. Giuffre to respond to targeted written discovery requests related to her residence and to submit to a two-hour remote deposition limited to the matter of her residence.”

Goldstone told DailyExpertNews that both the outcome and timing of the Maxwell case seemed futile to Andrew.

“Obviously, the Maxwell rulings are potentially very bad news for Prince Andrew, especially as they follow hard on his latest tactical move to argue a highly technical argument about the New York court’s lack of jurisdiction over the New York court. claim of Ms. Giuffre on the case based on nationality and her current whereabouts,” he said via email.

“I think there is no doubt that Mrs. Giuffre was a US citizen at the time of the alleged incidents, which are the subject of her complaint against the Prince, regardless of her current habitual residence.”

DailyExpertNews has reached out to attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Prince Andrew for comment.

Goldstone said it would be “interesting to see what substantive defense Prince Andrew has against Giuffre’s claims, as only technical and evasive positions have been put forward so far.”

In an earlier motion to resign filed on Oct. 29, a lawyer for Andrew said he “unequivocally denies Giuffre’s false charges against him”.

What happened in Maxwell’s trial?

Maxwell, 60, was found guilty in a New York federal court on five charges: sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy. She was acquitted on charges of seducing a minor to travel for illegal sex acts.

A sentencing date has not yet been set.

Prosecutors argued that Maxwell and Epstein colluded to set up a plan to lure young girls into sexual relations with Epstein from 1994 to 2004 in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Four women testified at trial that Epstein abused them and that Maxwell facilitated and sometimes participated in the abuse.

Her defense, meanwhile, said she was a “scapegoat” for Epstein’s actions and attacked the memories and motivations of the women who say they were sexually abused.

Maxwell’s attorneys are working on an appeal, attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim said.

“We strongly believe in Ghislaine’s innocence. We are, of course, very disappointed with the verdict,” Sternheim said outside the courthouse on Wednesday, adding that her team believes Maxwell will still be vindicated.

Maxwell’s family pledged their support after the conviction.

“We strongly believe in our sister’s innocence – we are very disappointed with the verdict. We have already appealed this evening and we believe she will ultimately be successful,” said a family statement.

This article has been corrected to reflect the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell will not take the position in a federal appeal hearing.