On the last day permitted by the justices, Ghislaine Maxwell filed a 159-page petition Friday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her sex-trafficking conviction, arguing that per the terms of a non-prosecution agreement the government made with her former boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, she should never have been prosecuted.

The 63-year old Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of five counts of sex trafficking and grooming minors for Epstein’s abuse — crimes for which she was sentenced 20 years imprisonment. Epstein himself died in jail before he could face trial.

Following Maxwell’s conviction, she unsuccessfully appealed, having argued that a 2007 plea deal between Epstein and the federal government made in the Southern District of Florida protected her — even though she was not a party to the deal and her prosecution was taking place in the Southern District of New York. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that it was “well established” law that a plea agreement “binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction,” and that no such indication was present in Maxwell’s case.

Maxwell initially had until Feb. 23 to file an appeal with the nation’s highest court, but a few weeks before the filing was due, the deadline was extended by Justice Sonia Sotomayor until April 10, after Maxwell said she had hired a new lawyer just one day earlier.

In Maxwell’s petition, her attorney called the case “the perfect vehicle” to resolve a split among the circuits over whether, in disputes like Maxwell’s, “United States” refers to the federal government broadly, or prosecutors in a specific jurisdiction more narrowly. It goes on to argue that a promise made in a plea agreement by one set of federal prosecutors should be binding on prosecutors from a different jurisdiction.

“A defendant should be able to rely on a promise that the United States will not prosecute again, without being subject to a gotcha in some other jurisdiction that chooses to interpret that plain language promise in some other way,” it said in the brief.

Maxwell is a British former socialite who is the daughter of British media proprietor and fraudster Robert Maxwell.

Throughout Maxwell’s prosecution, information surfaced relating to connections between Maxwell, Epstein, and President Donald Trump, including testimony from one of Maxwell’s victims that Epstein introduced her to Trump at Mar-a-Lago when she was just 14 years old. The conservative-leaning Court — which includes three justices appointed by Trump — will now have the chance to decide whether Maxwell’s case is one in which they wish to become involved.

“This is an important issue and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court takes the case,” said Maxwell’s attorney, David Oscar Markus, in an email to Law&Crime Friday. “Ghislaine never should have been charged as the federal government gave her immunity. To say that it only applies in one jurisdiction and not another makes no sense as a matter of law or common sense.”

You can read the full filing here.

A notorious gang leader from Los Angeles who has been accused and linked to nine separate murders — three that he was found guilty of carrying out — had his convictions and death sentence overturned last week by the California Supreme Court.

Timothy McGhee, 51, was originally convicted and sentenced in 2009 for three murders and the attempted murders of two police officers. He was once on the U.S. Marshals most-wanted list after disappearing in 2001. Police captured him in 2003 in Arizona.

The three murder convictions that McGhee had overturned were reported between 1997 and 2001, with authorities suspecting that McGhee used violence and his influence as a leader for the Toonerville gang — which has existed in LA since the 1950s, according to the Los Angeles Times — to control the drug trade and intimidate people in neighborhoods surrounding Los Feliz Boulevard between the Los Angeles River and San Fernando Boulevard.

One of the victims, Ronnie Martin, 25, was allegedly shot 28 times by McGhee and several other members of the Toonerville gang. Another victim named Ryan Gonzalez, 17, was gunned down in 2000. The third was killed in 2001.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Allegations that murder defendant was ‘a…

Criminal Justice

Allegations that murder defendant was ‘a drug ho’ who practiced witchcraft leads to tossed conviction

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 25, 2025, 9:15 am CST

The New Mexico Supreme Court has overturned a woman’s 2022 murder conviction and barred a retrial because of “severe and pervasive prosecutorial misconduct, exacerbated by a lackluster defense.”

The state supreme court tossed the conviction and the case against Desiree Lensegrav, concluding in a Feb. 20 opinion that her “entire trial was filled with theatrics, hyperbole and disparaging inflammatory statements.”

In his opening statement, the prosecutor called Lensegrav “a worthless mother” and “a drug ho—not my words!” the opinion said. During the trial, the prosecution called a witness who accused Lensegrav of witchcraft. In closing statements, the prosecutor encouraged jurors to convict Lensegrav “for the stench of death that permeated this courtroom.”

The prosecutor was referring to the introduction of “foul-smelling” physical evidence that was attached to the victim’s body, which caused a trial adjournment.

The Legal Profession Blog posted highlights from the opinion, while the Taos News and KOB had coverage. The state supreme court also issued a Feb. 20 press release.

The opinion identified the lead prosecutor as Assistant District Attorney Cosme Ripol of the Eighth Judicial District in New Mexico. He will not be commenting in response to an ABA Journal request, according to the district office manager.

Eighth Judicial District Attorney Marcus J. Montoya issued a statement.

“Though we prepared fully to present this case at trial, secured a conviction and would have preferred to keep this truly bad actor in prison, we accept the opinion of the supreme court, and we will always learn and evolve so as to continually improve,” Montoya said.

Lensegrav’s husband, Aram Montoya, pleaded guilty to murder in the killing in 2021 and received a life sentence. In his opening statement, Ripol told jurors about Aram Montoya’s statements incriminating Lensegrav, even though he was not on the prosecution witness list.

Referring to Lensegrav, Ripol said jurors will hear a story “of a strong, smart, determined, manipulative, vengeful, capable, controlling, resilient, cunning human being with a profound drug problem” who used her “needy, insecure” husband to commit murder.

Ripol also told jurors about expected testimony from the owner of a drug house. The owner would testify that Lensegrav suggested on several occasions that she was a witch, and she “would put menstrual blood concoctions” in her husband’s food to control him, Ripol said. The owner saw Lensegrav’s eyes turn “black. With fury. And rage,” Ripol said. “And it was like a Hollywood movie. He could feel the wind coming out of her.”

Lensegrav and Aram Montoya became suspects in 2020 after Aram Montoya was accused of trying to kill Lensegrav by repeatedly stabbing her in the neck and back with a paring knife. After Lensegrav came out of a medically induced coma, police gave her a Miranda warning and began to question her about the 2019 murder of Joseph Morgas. Police told Lensegrav that her husband had confessed to the murder, and her husband had thrown her “under the bus.”

Lensegrav told police that she wanted Aram Montoya to beat up Morgas because of his statements at the drug house. Morgas was a relative of a man who raped and impregnated Lensegrav when she was a teenager.

Lensegrav said Morgas laughed at her, called her a drug whore, and said she deserved to be raped. He also said he had video of Lensegrav at the drug house, and he would share it with his family, so they could get custody of her child.

Aram Montoya and Morgas fought outside the drug house, Lensegrav told police. Aram Montoya put Morgas in a headlock and “choked him out,” causing him to turn purple and go limp, she said. Lensegrav said she helped dispose of the body, fearing that Aram Montoya would kill her, too, if she didn’t cooperate.

Ripol told jurors that Lensegrav had confessed to strangling Morgas with twine, directed her husband to burn the body and to cut off Morgas’ head with a shovel, and had thrown the shovel and head in the river.

“None of these allegations would conform to the evidence,” the New Mexico Supreme Court said.

“Inexplicably,” the state supreme court said, “defense counsel did not object to the vast majority of instances of prosecutorial misconduct that defendant identifies on appeal.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutorial misconduct was so unfairly prejudicial that it presented a double jeopardy bar to a retrial under the New Mexico Constitution.

“Prosecutors are held to the highest ethical standards in all courtrooms, and any time that standard is not maintained, reversal and this type of circumstance is the result. Like many trials get, this case became emotionally charged,” Montoya said in his statement to the Journal.

“Fortunately, the person we know was physically guilty of taking Mr. Morgas’ life is still in prison, and he will stay there,” Montoya said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. This BigLaw firm will represent Trump in…

Law Firms

This BigLaw firm will represent Trump in appeal of hush-money conviction

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 30, 2025, 12:47 pm CST

Sullivan & Cromwell will represent President Donald Trump in his appeal of his conviction and sentence for falsifying business records to hide a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election.

The lead lawyer on Trump’s election-interference case is Sullivan & Cromwell co-chair Robert Giuffra Jr., report Reuters, Law.com, the New York Times, Law360, Politico and Above the Law.

According to the New York Times, the law firm’s handling of the appeal “underscores how New York’s legal power players have warmed to the president. Mr. Trump was spurned by lawyers from major firms when he left office four years ago, but his second victory has brought about a sea change.”

Trump was convicted in May 2024 after the Manhattan district attorney’s office in New York argued that he falsified records to cover up a crime—namely, violation of a New York law that bars using illegal means to promote a candidate for political office. The concealment made the crime a felony.

Earlier this month, Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which meant that there would be no legal penalty.

Trump’s trial lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove of Blanche Law, have been nominated to top positions in the U.S. Department of Justice. Blanche had resigned from Cadwalader to represent Trump.

Other members of Trump’s team are Sullivan & Cromwell partners James McDonald, Morgan Ratner, Jeffrey Wall and Matthew Schwartz. All the lawyers on the team have served as clerks for U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DNA issues ‘cast a pall’ over murder conviction,…

U.S. Supreme Court

DNA issues ‘cast a pall’ over murder conviction, warranting SCOTUS review, ABA amicus brief says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 28, 2024, 9:02 am CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court should once again consider the case of a Texas death row inmate whose conviction was based on DNA evidence tested by a lab that “consistently and egregiously mishandled DNA evidence,” the ABA has said in an amicus brief.

The ABA filed the March 27 brief in the case of Areli Escobar, according to an ABA press release. It is the second time that the ABA has urged the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The ABA filed its first amicus brief in August 2022, arguing that Escobar’s conviction “ought not stand as a matter of fundamental fairness.” The brief cited findings by a state habeas court, which found that DNA evidence in Escobar’s case was “false, misleading and unreliable.”

The lab’s mishandling of DNA evidence was so egregious that it was shut down by the state, the first ABA brief said.

According to SCOTUSblog, in January 2023, Supreme Court vacated a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision that upheld Escobar’s conviction and remanded. The Supreme Court said the Texas court should consider the state’s position supporting Escobar and confessing error in the case.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the top criminal court in Texas, once again upheld the conviction in September 2023.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said it was aware that the state was no longer defending Escobar’s conviction when it originally ruled against Escobar, and nothing presented to the court since then changes its conclusion that there was no due process violation. There was no showing that lab deficiencies affected Escobar’s DNA evidence, the court said.

Evidence shown to be false—statistical errors in DNA probability estimates—isn’t material because Escobar would have been convicted anyway, the court had concluded.

The victim in the case, 17-year-old Bianca Maldonado Hernandez, had 46 stab wounds. She lived in the same apartment building as Escobar. Escobar’s girlfriend testified at trial that she called him in the early-morning hours on the date in question, and she could hear moaning and screaming in the background. The girlfriend had concluded that Escobar was having sex with someone and had complained to her friends about it.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cited the girlfriend’s testimony, along with shoe-print evidence, Escobar’s appearance after the offense, and Escobar’s fingerprint on a lotion bottle near the victim’s body,

According to the ABA’s new brief, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals “improperly downplayed the inculpatory effect of the false DNA evidence, and retroactively attempted to rehabilitate certain pieces of evidence” to support the conviction.

“The DNA errors go to the heart of the reliability of the evidence in this case and cast a pall over [Escobar’s] conviction and sentence,” the new ABA brief said.

DNA evidence found to be false and unreliable “ran afoul” of at least four parts of the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: DNA Evidence, according to the new amicus brief.

Those standards say labs should maintain accreditation through “scrupulous adherence to scientific best practices,” should collect and keep evidence in a manner that prevents contamination, should implement scientifically valid protocols, and should take steps to minimize bias in the interpretation of DNA test results.

In Escobar’s case, the brief said, lab employees provided misleading testimony that gave the impression they had a system of checks and balances. In addition, the lab had multiple instances of evidence contamination, employed unqualified staff members who used “indefensible” protocols, and failed to minimize bias in interpreting test results.

Lab contamination affected samples from Escobar’s shoe and his sister’s Mazda vehicle, the new ABA brief said.

“It ought to be uncontroversial that when critical evidence in a capital murder trial was based on scientifically unreliable methods and processes of dubious validity, the resulting conviction cannot stand,” the ABA brief said.

See also:

The New York Times: “In Death Penalty Cases, a Texas Court Tests the Supreme Court’s Patience”

Massachusetts‘ highest court reinstated the first-degree murder conviction of a woman who in 2009 killed her former neighbor and cut her open to steal her baby.

A jury in 2014 convicted Julie Corey of first-degree murder and aggravated kidnapping of 23-year-old Darlene Haynes. But five years later her felony murder conviction was tossed, with a judge saying that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove she committed aggravated kidnapping during the killing. Corey also appealed for a new trial on the grounds that she had ineffective counsel, but that was denied.

On Monday, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the lower court’s decision and reinstated the first-degree murder conviction.

Haynes’ landlord entered the Worchester apartment on July 27, 2009, over concerns about her pets. The landlord was met with a “very foul” smell when he entered the apartment. He walked into a bedroom closet and pulled on a blanket when a “leg fell out.” Haynes, who was 8 months pregnant at the time of her death, had an electrical cord around her neck along with a nine-inch incision on her abdomen. The baby was gone.

A Florida judge set aside the wrongful conviction of a man who served nearly 45 years in prison for an armed robbery based on shaky evidence that prosecutors failed to disclose — their star witness identified him as the shooter after having had his memory “hypnotically refreshed” by a police lieutenant self-taught in hypnotism.

In a hearing on Wednesday, Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge Lindsay Tygart vacated Willie L. Williams Jr.’s 1976 convictions for attempted murder and robbery. The move came after the Fourth Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office’s Conviction Integrity Review (CIR) examined the case and uncovered the exculpatory evidence, his lawyers said in a news release.