From: FBI News Briefing <¶
To: “FBINewsBriefing” <¶
Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - FBI Daily News Briefing - April 14, 2025¶
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 10:15:12 +0000¶
Importance: Normal¶
View in Browser¶
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Seal¶
April 14, 2025¶
Federal Bureau of Investigation¶
Daily News Briefing¶
(In coordination with the Office of Public Affairs)¶
Email Public Affairs to subscribe to the Daily News Briefing. Mobile version and archive available here.¶
| Table of Contents |
|---|
EFTA00163378¶
EFTA00163379¶
EFTA00163380¶
EFTA00163381¶
EFTA00163382¶
EFTA00163383¶
EFTA00163384¶
EFTA00163385¶
EFTA00163386¶
EFTA00163387¶
EFTA00163388¶
EFTA00163389¶
EFTA00163390¶
EFTA00163391¶
EFTA00163392¶
EFTA00163393¶
GHislaine Maxwell, Jailed Epstein Accomplice, Appeals Case to U.S. Supreme Court¶
ABC News (04/11, Hill, Katersky) reported that Ghislaine Maxwell asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to overturn her sex-trafficking conviction, arguing she was covered by a non-prosecution agreement the government made with her former paramour, Jeffrey Epstein. The article noted that Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. She was convicted on five counts of aiding Epstein in his abuse of underage girls in December 2021. A federal appeals court rejected her argument that Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement, arranged in 2007, barred her prosecution in New York. She urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider her case. “Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein,” her attorneys wrote in their petition. The article added that Maxwell said the US Supreme Court should resolve differences of opinion among federal appeals court as to whether a non-prosecution arranged in one district can be enforced in another. “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,” defense attorney David Markus wrote.¶
EFTA00163394¶
EFTA00163395¶
EFTA00163396¶
EFTA00163397¶