Maxwell chose not to testify in his own trial, saying “nothing was necessary” as the prosecution “had not proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt.” As a result, she was not cross-examined about her friendship with Andrew.
However, there is no guarantee that she will not take a position on an expected appeal of her verdict – or if the civil case against Andrew goes to court. She could also choose to cooperate with the authorities – by giving them any potentially incriminating information she may have about others – in an attempt to reduce her sentence, legal experts said.
“Maxwell may now have more to say on the whole subject, following her conviction,” Nick Goldstone, head of dispute resolution in the UK at international law firm Ince, told CNN, though those discussions may “take some time to unfold.” he added.
“If Maxwell has incriminating information and evidence regarding Prince Andrew or indeed any other person who engaged in illegal conduct in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, then I think the Prince and others may very well have much to fear from a trial,” Goldstone said. . in an email.
“On the other hand, if Prince Andrew has done nothing wrong, he should have nothing to fear from Maxwell’s trial.”
But, Gerry said, Andrew may have cause for concern if there is a trial in Maxwell’s case.
“Judgment hearings can occur if she decides to provide or has provided information,” Gerry said. “This could involve a lot of people, including Prince Andrew. She certainly has nothing to lose now that she’s facing a significant sentence.”
Defendants have the greatest opportunity to cooperate before they are charged, and that’s how they come up with favorable pleas, said CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
“But it is possible in some circumstances to cooperate after sentencing, although (Maxwell) will have much less influence now,” he said.
“I suppose she will do what she can to reduce her punishment, and cooperation is the only option now. It obviously depends on what information she has.”
The government would obviously be interested if it had any incriminating information about Andrew, Toobin said – but there is no reason to assume she does, he added, and Andrew has denied any inappropriate behavior.
“Now that she’s been convicted, she’s a less valuable witness to the prosecution because she can be more easily discredited as someone who’s just trying to reduce her sentence,” Toobin said.
Giuffre: Maxwell did not act alone
Giuffre was not called as either a prosecutor or a defense witness in Maxwell’s trial, but her name was mentioned several times in court.
Lawyers acting for 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 judgment confirms the courage and commitment of our clients, who for many years stood up against all odds to bring Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to justice,” said U.S. Attorney David Drenge .
“They did not act and could not have acted alone. The extent and extent and duration of their sex trafficking crimes depend on many wealthy and powerful accomplices and accomplices. Nor are they above the law.”
“I hope today is not the end, but rather another step in that justice is done. Maxwell did not act alone. Others must be held accountable. I believe they will be,” she tweeted.
One of Maxwell’s prosecutors, who went by the pseudonym “Kate” during the trial, said during the Socialist trial that she was reluctant to break off contact with Maxwell and Epstein, “because I had witnessed how connected they both were and I was afraid.”
“Kate” said she used to hear Maxwell talk to her about the Socialist’s friends, Prince Andrew and Donald Trump.
It is no secret that Maxwell, the daughter of Czech-born newspaper magnate and former British legislator Robert Maxwell, who died under mysterious circumstances in 1991, moved in exclusive circles in both Britain and the United States.
A now infamous picture appears to show the prince with his arm about the life of Giuffre, then Virginia Roberts, with Maxwell in the background.
In a BBC interview in November 2019, Andrew said he did not remember meeting Giuffre and suggested that a picture of the two might have been processed.
Prince Andrew’s lawyers have fought hard to get the case against him dismissed. On Tuesday, they argued that the U.S. court hearing the civil lawsuit that Giuffre filed in August has no jurisdiction over the case.
A motion filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan states, “Ms. Giuffre claims to be a citizen of the state of Colorado, the evidence shows that she actually resides in Australia, where she has lived in all but two of the last nineteen more year.” The filing also asks the court to “order Ms. Giuffre to respond to targeted written requests for discovery regarding her domicile and submit to a two-hour remote deposit limited to the issue of her domicile.”
Goldstone told CNN that both the outcome and the timing of the Maxwell case seemed unhelpful to Andrew.
“Of course, the Maxwell judgments are potentially very bad news for Prince Andrew, especially as they come hard on the heels of his latest tactical move to argue for a very technical argument about the lack of jurisdiction of the New York Court to hear Mrs Giuffre’s claim on the basis of nationality and her current residence, “he said via email.
“I think it is beyond any doubt that Mrs Giuffre was a US citizen at the time of the alleged incidents, which is the subject of her complaint against the Prince, regardless of her current habitual residence.”
CNN has contacted lawyers for Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Prince Andrew for a comment.
Goldstone said it would be “interesting to see what material defense Prince Andrew has against Giuffre’s claims, as so far they are only technical and evasive positions.”
In an earlier motion for dismissal filed Oct. 29, a lawyer for Andrew said he “unequivocally denies Giuffre’s false accusations against him.”
What happened in Maxwell’s trial?
Maxwell, 60, was found guilty in a federal court in New York of five charges: sex trafficking with a minor, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and three related cases of conspiracy. She was acquitted on the charge of having lured a minor to travel to engage in illegal sexual acts.
A verdict date has not yet been set.
Prosecutors alleged that Maxwell and Epstein conspired to establish a scheme to lure young girls into sexual relations with Epstein from 1994 to 2004 in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the US Virgin Islands. Four women testified during the trial that Epstein abused them and that Maxwell eased the abuse and sometimes even participated in it.
Her defense, meanwhile, said she was a “scapegoat” for Epstein’s actions and attacked the memories and motives of the women who say they were sexually abused.
Maxwell’s lawyers are working on an appeal, said attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim.
“We firmly believe in Ghislaine’s innocence. It’s clear we are very disappointed with the verdict,” Sternheim said outside the courthouse on Wednesday, adding that her team believes Maxwell will still be justified.
Maxwell’s family promised their continued support after the guilty verdict.
“We fully believe in our sister’s innocence – we are very disappointed with the verdict. We have already started the appeal tonight and we believe that she will eventually be justified,” it said in a family statement.
CNN’s Brian Vitagliano, Sonia Moghe, Lauren del Valle, Laura Studley and Patrick Cornell contributed to this report.