Highlights From the Final Day of Testimony in the Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

Image

Testimony in the sex-trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell came to a close in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Friday with Ms. Maxwell opting not to take the stand.

The defense presented a handful of witnesses over two days, including a former assistant to Ms. Maxwell who testified that she had never seen Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein engage in inappropriate behavior with girls, and an expert testified that memories are fragile and malleable and can be distorted by language, emotion and misinformation.

The testimony appeared designed to chip away at the core of the prosecution’s case, which was presented by four women who described instances in which they said Mr. Epstein had touched and sexually abused them when they were teenagers.

Two of the four testified that they had met Ms. Maxwell before they met Mr. Epstein and that she had pretended to be a friend or mentor, showered them with attention and instructed them in how Mr. Epstein liked to be touched.

A third woman testified that Ms. Maxwell had made arrangements for her to give Mr. Epstein sexual massages in return for hundreds of dollars in cash. She also said Ms. Maxwell had once touched her breasts and buttocks. A fourth testified that Ms. Maxwell had given her an unwanted massage.

Closing arguments are expected on Monday. The judge will then instruct the jury on the law and deliberations will begin.

Here are some takeaways from the defense’s second and last day of testimony.

A former girlfriend of Mr. Epstein testified that she had not seen him sexually abuse teenagers.

Eva Andersson-Dubin told jurors that she had dated Mr. Epstein between about 1983 and 1990 or 1991 and had never witnessed any inappropriate conduct on his part with teenage girls.

Ms. Andersson-Dubin, a former model and doctor, later married the hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, but remained friendly with Mr. Epstein even after he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution in Florida and began serving a short sentence in 2008.

A prosecution witness identified as “Jane” had testified that she had been in sexual massage sessions with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell starting when she was 14 and that someone named Eva had also taken part.

But Ms. Andersson-Dubin replied “absolutely not,” when asked by a defense lawyer if she had ever taken part in such an encounter. She also said she did not recognize a photograph of Jane. While being cross-examined, however, she acknowledged having memory problems.

The lingering question of whether Ms. Maxwell might testify was finally answered.

Defendants in criminal trials rarely testify, in large part because they would have to remain on the stand and answer probing questions from prosecutors that could veer into areas that the defense might be eager to avoid.

Still, the decision is the defendant’s, and some have taken the gamble that their testimony might resonate with jurors or earn their sympathy. And until Friday afternoon it was unknown if Ms. Maxwell would take the stand to respond to the accusations against her.

She put the matter to rest late on Friday after the judge overseeing the case, Alison J. Nathan, formally reminded her she had a right to testify and asked about her intentions.

“The government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and so, there is no reason for me to testify,” she said in her British accent. When Judge Nathan asked if that meant she would, in fact, not testify, Ms. Maxwell replied that the judge was “correct.”

Ghislaine Maxwell told a federal judge on Friday that she would not testify in her own defense at her sex-trafficking trial in Manhattan.

Ms. Maxwell announced her decision in response to a question from the judge, Alison J. Nathan of Federal District Court, as the defense headed toward wrapping up its case in a trial that has moved more quickly than expected.

“The government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Ms. Maxwell said as she stood in the courtroom. “And so, there is no reason for me to testify.” The jury was not present when she spoke.

Ms. Maxwell, 59, is charged with recruiting, grooming and assisting Jeffrey Epstein, her longtime companion, to sexually abuse underage girls. She has pleaded not guilty. She was arrested in July 2020, almost a year after Mr. Epstein, 66, was found dead in his cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Generally, defense lawyers advise their clients not to take the witness stand in their own trial, but the decision is ultimately a defendant’s.

And defendants in a series of recent high-profile trials have testified, like Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted last month of two fatal shootings amid riots and protests over police conduct in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s lawyer, Mark D. Richards, told The New York Times in a recent interview that he believed Ms. Maxwell “would do more harm than good” to her case if she took the witness stand. He noted that the prosecution would be able to confront her directly with evidence of her relationship with Mr. Epstein.

“She’s trying to separate herself from Epstein,” Mr. Richards said. “At least now, you can blame it on a dead guy.”

“At this time, the defense rests.”

With those words, a lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell told a federal jury late Friday afternoon that her defense in her sex-trafficking trial was complete.

A federal prosecutor followed with the announcement that the government had “no further case,” setting the stage for closing arguments to begin on Monday in the widely-watched trial of Ms. Maxwell, 59, who is charged with sex trafficking among other counts.

She has been accused of recruiting and grooming teenage girls to have sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein. Prosecutors have said that Ms. Maxwell helped lure girls into Mr. Epstein’s orbit, sometimes pretending to be their friend or mentor and acclimating them to sexual abuse.

With close to a full day of arguments expected and the judge needing to instruct the jurors on the law, it seemed likely Ms. Maxwell’s case will be submitted to the jury early on Tuesday.

The trial, once expected to last up to six weeks, moved much more quickly, with the government taking 10 days for its presentation to the jury, and the defense completing its case in two days.

Among the defense’s witnesses was a former assistant to Ms. Maxwell, who testified that she had never seen Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein engage in inappropriate behavior with girls; and an expert who testified that memories are malleable and can be distorted.

Another defense witness, Eva Andersson-Dubin, a longtime associate and former girlfriend of Mr. Epstein, testified on Friday that she had never taken part in the sort of group sexual encounter described by one of the prosecution witnesses, known only as “Jane.”

Late Friday afternoon, outside of the jury’s presence, Judge Alison J. Nathan advised Ms. Maxwell of her right to testify in her own defense.

“Your honor,” Ms. Maxwell responded: “The government has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And so, there is no reason for me to testify.”

For the second time on Friday, Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense lawyers elicited testimony from a witness meant to undermine the accusation that Ms. Maxwell had taken part in group sexual activity.

That allegation came from a prosecution witness, known only as Jane, who testified that Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein would sometimes summon people into a room to take part in an orgy.

Defense lawyers had asked Jane if she remembered women named Sophie, Eva, Emmy, Michelle and Kelly being involved in those episodes. Jane testified that all five had participated and that some of them would be able to corroborate her account.

Earlier on Friday, Eva Andersson-Dubin, a former girlfriend of Mr. Epstein, testified that she had never taken part in group sexualized massages. She also said she did not know Jane.

Soon afterward a second defense witness, Michelle Healy, testified that she had worked at Mr. Epstein’s company and remembered the witness referred to as Jane, as well as a woman named Emmy who sometimes spent time with Jane.

“Were you ever involved with any group sexualized massages with Jane?” a defense lawyer asked.

“Absolutely not,” Ms. Healy testified.

She added that she had not been involved in that sort of sexual activity with Mr. Epstein either.

While being cross-examined by a prosecutor, Ms. Healy acknowledged that she was not necessarily the only person named Michelle who had interacted with Mr. Epstein.

She also agreed that she had never been beyond the threshold of any of Mr. Epstein’s homes, where sexual abuse was said to have taken place.

Prosecutors have said Ms. Maxwell, who is charged with sex trafficking, introduced girls to Mr. Epstein, encouraged girls to massage him and gave instructions on how he liked to be touched.

Several witnesses called by prosecutors testified that massages with Mr. Epstein always involved sexual touching initiated by him. But Jane was the only witness to describe Ms. Maxwell as a full participant in those sessions.

A longtime associate and former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein testified on Friday at Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial, saying she had never taken part in a group sexual encounter as one of the prosecution witnesses had suggested.

The witness, Eva Andersson-Dubin, is the founder of the Dubin Breast Center at Mount Sinai and is married to Glenn Dubin, a founder of Highbridge Capital Management. She dated Mr. Epstein in the 1980s and remained friendly with him even after he served a stint in jail beginning in 2008.

Called as a defense witness, Ms. Andersson-Dubin testified that she had dated Mr. Epstein on and off from about 1983 until 1990 or 1991. After that, she said, the two were regularly in touch. She added that she was comfortable with the relationship between Mr. Epstein and her three children, who referred to him as “Uncle F.”

A defense lawyer, Jeffrey Pagliuca asked: “Did you observe any inappropriate conduct between Mr. Epstein and any teenage females?”

“I did not,” Ms. Andersson-Dubin replied.

Ms. Andersson-Dubin’s testimony also contradicted an accuser’s account of sexualized group massages involving Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein. That witness, identified in court only as Jane, said that she first been abused by Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein when she was 14 or 15 years old.

She said Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein would “sort of summon” people into a massage room or Mr. Epstein’s bedroom, “And it would just, you know, sort of turn into this orgy.”

While cross-examining Jane, the defense asked her who besides Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein had taken part in the group massages, offering names and descriptions. One of those Jane said had participated matched the description of Ms. Andersson-Dubin, though only her first name was cited.

“You told the government about a woman named Eva who joined in, correct?” asked a defense lawyer, Laura Menninger.

“Correct,” Jane replied.

While questioning Ms. Andersson-Dubin, the defense showed her a picture of Jane. Ms. Andersson-Dubin testified: “I don’t recall ever meeting this person.”

Later, Mr. Pagliuca asked: ““Have you ever been in a group sexual encounter with the person we are calling Jane”

“Absolutely not,” Ms. Andersson-Dubin replied, also adding that she had never been in a group massage with Jane.

On cross-examination, a prosecutor asked Ms. Andersson-Dubin had any memory problems.

“It’s very hard for me to remember anything far back and sometimes I can’t remember things from last month My family notices it. I notice it. It’s been an issue.”

Ms. Andersson-Dubin and her family have long been entangled in the Epstein saga. Her husband and a daughter were known to socialize with Mr. Epstein at his homes, and depositions in civil cases have suggested that the Dubins could have been aware of Mr. Epstein’s abuse of underage girls.

Ms. Andersson-Dubin’s own relationship with Mr. Epstein began in the 1980s, long before she married Mr. Dubin and became a member of Manhattan’s wealthy elite. She became Mr. Epstein’s girlfriend while putting herself through medical school and, with his encouragement, put modeling aside to focus on her studies.

After the jury was sent home late Thursday in the sex-trafficking trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, the judge appeared to be ready to ask Ms. Maxwell if she understood her right to testify in her own defense — and whether she planned to do so.

Bobbi C. Sternheim, a lawyer for Ms. Maxwell, responded, “Judge, I would ask that we wait until tomorrow please.”

But by midmorning on Friday, the issue had not arisen, and as Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers proceeded to present witnesses on the second day of the defense’s case, it continued to appear unlikely she would testify and offer the jury her side of the story.

Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers also made it clear that they could rest their case as early as Friday, after the judge, Alison J. Nathan, appeared skeptical of a defense request to put the case on hold while her lawyers tracked down two witnesses.

Ms. Maxwell’s defense team had hoped to locate a witness identified only as “Kelly,” who has not responded to subpoenas, and another witness from England, which would have required extra time. But prosecutors argued that Ms. Maxwell’s defense had already had time to plan its case — Ms. Maxwell has been in custody since the summer of 2020 — and the judge appeared to agree.

“You have your witnesses, or you rest,” Judge Nathan said, sounding a note of exasperation.

Ms. Maxwell, 59, has been charged with recruiting, grooming and helping Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Heated disputes over exhibits. Angry accusations of name-calling. Objections dripping with sarcasm.

Even by the standards of a high-stakes criminal trial, the tensions between Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers and the federal prosecutors trying her case have been remarkable, sometimes spilling into open hostility in court.

While the jury has been seated in the courtroom, theatrical impatience is the weapon of choice for both sides. But when the jury box has been empty, the gloves have come off, often leaving federal judge Alison J. Nathan to make peace.

The animosity has been particularly apparent between Laura Menninger, one of Ms. Maxwell’s longtime lawyers, and an assistant U.S. attorney, Alison Moe.

One of their earliest trial exchanges took place during Ms. Menninger’s cross-examination of a witness identified as Jane, the first of four accusers to take the stand against Ms. Maxwell.

Ms. Moe repeatedly objected to a line of questioning by Ms. Menninger about communications between Jane’s lawyer and the government regarding tickets to “The Lion King” on Broadway. Jane had said Mr. Epstein gave her the tickets.

Responding to the barrage of objections, Ms. Menninger repeatedly rephrased her question. Finally, Ms. Moe said: “No objection, your Honor.”

“Good,” Judge Nathan said.

Then Ms. Menninger said, “I know Ms. Moe would like to come do this for me, but —”

“I do object to that, your Honor,” Ms. Moe said.

“All right,” Judge Nathan said. “Everybody calm down.”

A few days later, after the jury had been dismissed for the day, the defense objected to the government’s efforts to admit a slate of exhibits, including photographs of Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein together.

“Throughout this trial, the defense has repeatedly tried to distance Ms. Maxwell from Mr. Epstein and his affairs and argue that things were compartmentalized,” Ms. Moe said, her hands gesturing urgently. A few yards away, Ms. Menninger looked on with a stern face.

When Ms. Moe said prosecutors wanted to use a photograph depicting a topless 17-year-old and a second image depicting one of Ms. Maxwell’s accusers, Ms. Menninger objected, trampling on courtroom decorum by referring to Ms. Moe as “this lawyer.”

Then she accused Ms. Moe of trying to sneak in allegations about purportedly underage girls with the photos. She also said the prosecutor, who had argued against letting in other photos of the accusers, wanted to have it both ways when it came to sexualized images.

“We litigated whether or not we could put in evidence photographs of this witness, and the government called us — I think it was ‘slut-shaming’ — when I tried to argue there were other photographs of this individual that were much like this,” Ms. Menninger said.

“Your Honor, I’m surprised by all of those arguments,” Ms. Moe said.

The moments of accord have been so rare that they have been heralded as minor miracles. One day last week, when the jury was still out to lunch, one of Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers, Christian Everdell, told Judge Nathan that the two sides agreed on how the judge should address the jury about a particular witness.

Minutes later, Mr. Everdell said the two sides had concurred on another matter.

“We have agreement again, your Honor,” Mr. Everdell said.

“It’s a magical moment,” Judge Nathan said.

“It is a magical moment. I agree with you,” Mr. Everdell said. “Let’s hold onto this.”

A federal judge said on Thursday that she had denied a request by Ghislaine Maxwell to have three witnesses testify anonymously on her behalf at her widely watched federal sex-trafficking trial in Manhattan — a request the judge said was unprecedented in the annals of law.

The ruling by Judge Alison J. Nathan came as Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers began to present the defense’s case in Federal District Court, where Ms. Maxwell faces charges she helped Mr. Epstein recruit, groom and ultimately sexually abuse underage girls. She has pleaded not guilty.

In support of the request for witness anonymity, Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers cited the judge’s earlier decision to allow three of Ms. Maxwell’s accusers to testify for the prosecution under the pseudonyms “Jane” and “Kate” and a first name, “Carolyn,” in order to protect their privacy.

But Judge Nathan, in a written opinion filed on Thursday morning, drew a distinction between the government’s witnesses and those of the defense. She wrote that the court had a legal duty to ensure that the privacy and dignity of crime victims are respected.

“If alleged victims of abuse were subject to publicity, harassment, and embarrassment, other alleged victims of sex crimes may be deterred from coming forward to report abuse,” she added.

She said such reasons did not apply to the defense’s request.

“None of the defense’s witnesses intend to testify to sensitive personal topics or sexual conduct,” Judge Nathan wrote. Rather, she said, they all were anticipated to deny misconduct by Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein and did not qualify as victims under the law.

“Further, there is no similar concern, as there are for alleged victims of sexual abuse, that denying the use of pseudonyms will deter reports of misconduct,” the judge said.

The defense has not identified the three witnesses who were seeking anonymity. Bobbi C. Sternheim, one of Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers, had suggested in court that some defense witnesses might not be willing to testify if they had to do so under their true names. She argued that denying their requests for anonymity might “impact the willingness of these witnesses to testify, thereby compromising Ms. Maxwell’s right to present her defense.”

Judge Nathan wrote that those concerns are present in every high-profile criminal case.

As to the defense’s concern about Ms. Maxwell’s right to present a defense, Judge Nathan noted the “late-breaking nature of the defense’s request” — which was made two days after the government rested its case. She noted that the government’s request to use pseudonyms had been made before the trial began.

“The defense could and should have anticipated potential witnesses’ concerns,” Judge Nathan said, adding that Ms. Maxwell could always use tools like a subpoena to compel a reluctant witness's attendance at trial.

During a pretrial conference a week before the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell was set to begin in earnest, a prosecutor indicated that the government and defense still were at odds over some issues.

A defense lawyer began to respond, but Judge Alison J. Nathan cut him off.

“I don’t want a speech,” she said, directing that the parties have a “mature, reasonable discussion and come to some agreement where agreement can be had.” If good-faith disputes remained, she said, they could be put in writing, adding, “I’ll be happy to resolve it.”

The moment came and went quickly, but it underscored an observable fact about Judge Nathan, 49, now in her 10th year as a member of Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York: She has firm command of her courtroom.

“She is known for her intellect and independence,” said Daniel C. Richman, a professor of criminal law at Columbia Law School. “She has a crisp, no-nonsense attitude toward legal issues and how they get presented and resolved.”

In the Maxwell case, Judge Nathan has already dispensed with an array of pretrial disputes — some as narrow as whether prosecutors could refer to her accusers as “victims” (the judge ruled they could when describing the four women whose accounts are at the center of the indictment); and more weighty questions, like whether Ms. Maxwell, 59, should be granted bail. (The judge has repeatedly denied her requests, most recently three weeks ago.)

But when Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers complained on Nov. 1 that their client was awakened at 3:45 a.m. for a court hearing and then had to wait for hours in a cold cellblock with little food, Judge Nathan ordered that Ms. Maxwell be transported to and from the courthouse “in a way that is humane, proper and consistent with security protocols.”

Just two weeks ago, President Biden nominated Judge Nathan to the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. The White House noted at the time that she would be the second openly gay woman to serve on any federal circuit court if she was confirmed by the Senate.

In at least two cases in recent years, Judge Nathan, who was appointed in 2011 to the District Court by President Barack Obama, sharply criticized the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan after it was accused of failing to turn over potentially favorable evidence to the defense before trial.

On Nov. 17, after taking the bench before another day of questioning prospective jurors, Judge Nathan briefly acknowledged the news of her potential elevation.

“Needless to say I am honored,” she said, adding that if she were nominated, she would continue to do her “day job, which means presiding over this trial through completion and handling the literally hundreds of other civil and criminal matters on my docket.”

Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense team began presenting its case Thursday in her sex-trafficking trial, seeking to undermine the accounts of four women who have told the jury that Ms. Maxwell steered them into sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.

Early in the day, the federal judge overseeing the trial rejected an unusual request by Ms. Maxwell to have three witnesses testify anonymously on her behalf.

Ms. Maxwell is charged with helping Mr. Epstein to sexually abuse teenage girls and young women, recruiting and grooming them for sexual encounters with Mr. Epstein.

The two-week case presented by prosecutors often focused on the nature of the relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting his own sex-trafficking trial.

Defense witnesses will not be allowed to testify under pseudonyms

In a written ruling Thursday morning, Judge Alison J. Nathan rejected Ms. Maxwell’s request to have some defense witnesses testify without using their real names. Several government witnesses testified using pseudonyms or partial names, including three of the four women who took the stand to accuse Ms. Maxwell of grooming them for abuse.

Three defense witnesses had asked to testify without revealing their identities, according to correspondence filed with the court. A lawyer for Ms. Maxwell said the witnesses might not otherwise testify, which would have the effect of “compromising Ms. Maxwell’s right to present her defense.”

Judge Nathan drew a distinction between the need to protect the identities of alleged crime victims — who may be asked to describe sensitive personal and sexual topics — and the privacy concerns of defense witnesses.

A former executive assistant said she “highly respected” Maxwell

Cimberly Espinosa, who worked for Ms. Maxwell from about 1996 until 2002, was the first witness called by Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers. She described Ms. Maxwell as Mr. Epstein’s “estate manager” and said she was demanding but fair.

Ms. Espinosa spoke about one of the women who testified as a government witness under a pseudonym, Jane. Two weeks ago, Jane told the jury that Ms. Maxwell recruited her to have illegal sexual encounters with her and Mr. Epstein, often during massages, when she was only 14 years old, far below the age of consent.

Ms. Espinosa said she and other employees thought of Jane as Mr. Epstein’s goddaughter. “I thought it was a loving relationship,” she said.

Ms. Espinosa testified that she had “never” seen Ms. Maxwell or Mr. Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls. On cross-examination Ms. Espinosa was pressed to confirm that she had never visited Mr. Epstein’s Palm Beach home, which other witnesses have described as a site of abuse.

A defense expert described how false memories can be formed

Elizabeth Loftus, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, testified Thursday as an expert witness for the defense, describing memories as fragile, malleable and vulnerable to distortion by outside forces.

Memory, Ms. Loftus told the jury, “doesn’t work like a recording device.” News reports, questioning by law enforcement, and other post-event suggestions can affect memory — and even false memories can include very vivid details, she said.

Though she did not address the statements of particular witnesses, Ms. Loftus’s testimony appeared intended to raise questions about the accounts of four women who have testified against Ms. Maxwell, accusing her of grooming them for abuse by Mr. Epstein. The women have given emotional descriptions of events that happened decades ago.

During cross-examination, a prosecutor sought to portray Ms. Loftus as favoring defendants, noting that she had testified in about 150 criminal trials — all but one of them for the defense — and that she had written a book called “Witness for the Defense.”