Ghislaine Maxwell, the former confidante and longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein, is once again at the center of a legal storm. On December 17, 2025, Maxwell filed a new petition in federal court in Manhattan, seeking to overturn her 2021 conviction for sex trafficking minors and related crimes. Her latest move, a writ of habeas corpus, marks a last-ditch legal effort after exhausting all traditional avenues of appeal, including a failed bid before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, according to multiple reports from CNN, BBC, and NBC News.
Maxwell, 63, is currently serving a 20-year sentence at a minimum-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas. She filed the petition pro se—meaning she is representing herself, without legal counsel—in the Southern District of New York. The court filing alleges “substantial new evidence” has emerged from civil actions, investigative reports, government disclosures, and documents that Maxwell claims fundamentally undermine the fairness of her trial and conviction.
“The above-mentioned newly discovered evidence is so compelling that, taken together, it amounts to a violation of the principle of a fair trial, as the plaintiff did not receive a fair trial before independent jurors who came to court with an open mind,” Maxwell wrote in her petition, as cited by CNN. Her argument hinges on several key points, including alleged juror misconduct, collusion between attorneys for Epstein’s victims and government investigators, and the withholding of exculpatory evidence by prosecutors.
One of the most explosive claims in Maxwell’s filing revolves around the jury selection process, or voir dire. She alleges that a juror concealed a personal history of sexual abuse, a fact she argues could have introduced bias into the proceedings. “Subsequent interviews, new evidence and sworn statements confirm intentional concealment and actual bias by that juror,” the petition states, according to CNBC and BBC News. Maxwell contends that, had this information been known, it would have disqualified the individual from serving and potentially altered the outcome of the trial.
In another significant allegation, Maxwell accuses prosecutors of hiding grand jury testimony from a police detective—testimony that, she claims, conflicted with what the detective presented at trial. This testimony was crucial, Maxwell argues, because it related to a massage table, a key piece of evidence used to secure convictions on two counts. She insists that the government’s failure to disclose this conflict deprived her of a fair opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s narrative.
Her petition also raises concerns about the relationship between attorneys representing Epstein’s victims and federal investigators. Maxwell asserts that there was improper “conspiracy and collusion” that tainted the legal process, a claim that, if substantiated, could call into question the impartiality of the government’s case. She further alleges that exculpatory information was withheld, false testimony was presented, and material facts were misrepresented to both the jury and the court.
Maxwell’s filing comes at a moment of heightened public scrutiny. The Department of Justice faces a congressionally mandated deadline of December 19, 2025, to release a trove of investigative files related to Epstein and Maxwell. This deadline is the result of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a new law signed by President Donald Trump after months of political and public pressure. The law requires the Justice Department to make public 18 categories of materials, including search warrants, financial records, notes from victim interviews, and data from electronic devices, as reported by NBC News and BBC News.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer in Manhattan recently granted the Justice Department’s request to release this material, noting that the documents “do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor.” However, Maxwell’s attorney has argued that unsealing these records could create “undue prejudice so severe that it would foreclose the possibility of a fair retrial” should her habeas petition succeed.
Maxwell’s legal saga has been marked by a series of high-profile developments since her arrest in 2020. She was convicted in December 2021 for her role in luring underage girls for Epstein to abuse, a conviction that followed years of investigations into the disgraced financier’s sex trafficking network. Epstein himself was arrested in July 2019 and died in his jail cell a month later, with his death officially ruled a suicide.
After her conviction, Maxwell was initially held at a low-security federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida. In the summer of 2025, she was transferred to the Texas facility after a two-day interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. The transfer sparked controversy, with some critics speculating about possible preferential treatment and the potential for Maxwell to assist the Trump administration in ongoing investigations. According to a transcript released by the Justice Department, Maxwell told Blanche during their nine-hour meeting that she “never witnessed Trump acting inappropriately with anyone.”
Maxwell’s previous appeals have all been unsuccessful. She had argued that a nonprosecution agreement Epstein reached with Florida authorities should have applied to her case in New York—a claim rejected by the courts. In October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal, leaving her with few remaining legal options.
The Justice Department has declined to comment on Maxwell’s latest petition, and the Southern District of New York similarly refused to address the specifics of her claims. The court is now under pressure to publish documents related to the Epstein investigations by the December 19 deadline. Federal judges in New York and Florida have already cleared the way for the release of grand jury materials and other investigative files, as required by the new transparency law.
Maxwell’s petition also references evidence obtained from litigation against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, financial institutions, and Epstein’s estate. She maintains that the cumulative effect of the alleged constitutional violations constitutes a “complete miscarriage of justice, rendering Petitioner’s conviction invalid, unsafe and infirm.”
Legal experts note that habeas corpus petitions are typically a last resort and rarely succeed, especially in high-profile federal cases. Still, Maxwell’s filing has reignited debate over the fairness of her trial and the broader handling of the Epstein scandal. The coming days may provide new insights as the Justice Department releases long-awaited investigative records, but for now, Maxwell remains behind bars, her fate once again in the hands of the federal courts.
As the deadline for the release of the Epstein files approaches, all eyes are on the Southern District of New York, where the next chapter in this complex and controversial saga is about to unfold.
