Kash’s Corner: Will Ghislaine Maxwell Get a New Trial?; Navy SEALs vs. Vaccine Mandate
On Kash’s Corner, we dive into potential juror misconduct in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.
“If that proves to be true … it is almost handing the defense in the [Ghislaine] Maxwell case reversible error across the board and getting her a new trial.”
We also discuss the Omicron variant and a federal court recently granting a preliminary injunction to a group of Navy Special Warfare servicemembers who sued the Biden administration for denying them religious exemptions.
Kash Patel: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Kash’s Corner in 2022. We hope you and your family had a wonderful holiday season, and we’re appreciative that you’re back with us to kickstart the new year. Jan, let’s get it going.
Jan Jekielek: Well, it’s an interesting week. There’s a whole lot of legal challenges related to COVID. There’s one in particular I really want to talk about, one that’s connected with some of the folks that you’ve actually worked with in the past, the Seals.
Mr. Patel: Yep.
Mr. Jekielek: And also, we’ve had the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and, or did it, I think we need to talk about that. I don’t think the public is ready for what we’re going to talk about here. And of course, Elizabeth Holmes, right? And that in itself was pretty fascinating. There’s a number of these charges that maybe will need to be retried. I don’t know, but we’re going to find out from you. What’s going on?
Mr. Patel: There’s a lot to be talked about, so I guess we should start with COVID. It’s on everyone’s mind. So to set the scene, I think for everybody, basically where we are in January is I want to start with the statistic. So January a year ago, that is January 2021, the amount of COVID positive tests we had was 200,000 during that time period.
Fast forward to this January 2022, we have one million positive COVID tests. Now I know there have been some different variants, Delta, and now we’re dealing with Omicron and things like that. But I think that just has to be said, because not enough people are talking about how prevalent the new variant is. And it’s just spreading, I think, faster than anybody thought it would.
It does have, unfortunately, the reality of having a political connotation because the new administration has come in and said, vaccine mandate, vaccine mandate, vaccine mandate, and they’ve hit it hard. And they’ve put in these restrictions on travel, restrictions on movement, restrictions on restaurants, restrictions on parties, restrictions on gatherings. And you would think all these restrictions would lead to a decrease in positive COVID test cases, and that’s just not the situation.
Mr. Jekielek: No, and here’s the thing. So Omicron is really unusual. I actually did an op-ed about this and relating some of these Omicron realities. Omicron has mutated in a way that is really unexpected, let’s just say a lot. At the same time, it’s really contagious. I think Delta had an R-naught of I think it was four. I can’t remember the exact number, but something like that. Pretty contagious already, less contagious than the measles.
I’ve been discussing this with a number of experts, but Omicron is something like seven to 10 R-naught. What that actually means is that every person that’s actually infected, and by the way, that means symptomatically, they’ve got some symptoms, right, is actually going to spread it to seven to 10 other people. Right?
Mr. Patel: Wow.
Mr. Jekielek: That is an explosive. And these are preliminary data, right? We don’t know the actual number, just to be clear. Right? But what it means is that essentially everyone who doesn’t have natural immunity to it is going to get it. It’s almost impossible to stop, unless you avoid humanity altogether—forever.
Mr. Patel: And I know people that had COVID a year ago and have now tested positive again a year later, and maybe that’s the Omicron variant.
Mr. Jekielek: This is also really interesting, and it’s contested right now, so there’s been some evidence that Omicron actually breaks through natural immunity, but natural immunity typically is pretty bulletproof. Right? And there’s a ton of literature to suggest that it is. And the people that have been saying that, oh, it looks like Omicron is breaking through natural immunity, now they’re looking at data saying, not actually, it doesn’t look like that anymore to me. So, I don’t know. We’ll have to see. If it does, that will be really remarkable. Right?
And also, the whole situation offers us an opportunity. And frankly, this is what my op-ed was about. The whole situation offers an opportunity to completely change COVID policy, because as you mentioned very rightly earlier, a lot of COVID policy has simply not been remotely successful here in the U.S. Right? So, the question is, how do you change course? Well, you can use a novel variant that is actually unexpected in a lot of ways. You can just change things and say, look, it’s new and we got to change things.
Mr. Patel: So, that would be a good thing, to take on the policy shift based on evidence. That would be one good thing that would come from this recent spike. Another good thing is that it seems like the Omicron variant is much less lethal than previous variants, so that’s good. Just because even though people get it, a lot less people are dying.
Actually I just read that the hospitalization rate for Omicron is much lower than a year ago when we were dealing with the other variants, so that’s also a good thing. It means a lot less people who are testing positive with the CCP virus are going to the hospital, so that’s good.
And you would think that our politicians or you would hope that our politicians would band together, at least on this one thing and say, okay, let’s set the stage for America and the world on how to deal with and how to safeguard our citizen rate. But unfortunately, the CDC keeps stumbling through it and people keep politicizing the COVID virus.
Mr. Jekielek: And just on your point there, it does appear that it is actually a lot less lethal. That is what a lot of the data is telling us. And apparently part of the reason for that, this is what a number of experts have told me, is that Delta and previous variants actually really kind of infected the lungs. Right? But now the Omicron is infecting the upper tract and the sinuses, which is generally associated with a lot less lethal outcomes.
Mr. Patel: I’m glad to hear that and I’m sure our audience is too. And the one thing I want to talk about though, on the CDC guidelines, right, everyone now knows this, or most people should. First, it was a 10-day quarantine and you just got to stay away from everybody. But out of nowhere, the CDC cut that in half, maybe a week or two ago.
I was mid-travel [and] I was traveling outside the continental United States during this time period. And it shocks the airline industry. Airline workers were once told don’t come in for 10-days if you have tested positive or been near someone who tested positive for COVID. All of a sudden, they’re now told five days.
And the reality of it is, I looked into it, the airline worker industry was furious because they were told one thing based on science. And now because of a big push by the airline ownership industry themselves, that is the big guys like American and Delta and United and whatnot, because you know this, the cancellation of flights.
We had 2,500 flights canceled during Christmas day alone and people couldn’t travel, and it caught up with the airline industry. And so, what did the airline industry do? They pushed their lobbyists and their teams in Washington DC to say, we can’t fly these people around the world. We’re taking an economic hit. The press is bad for us. How do we fix it? Oh, we’ll cut the quarantine period in half, which I just think is ludicrous to make a decision like that based on sheer economics.
But to me, it just shows the hypocrisy of some of our lawmakers and legislatures and so-called experts in COVID, when for years they’ve been saying it has to be a 10 day, but now it’s okay to be a 5-day period. So I do have some empathy for the airline workers who are now being forced to go back to work when they’re not themselves comfortable with going back to work after living under such strict guidelines for 10-days. And we still just last weekend saw massive airline cancellations, thousands actually just up until two days ago in one weekend period. So, I don’t know where it’s going, but that’s not a good sign, I think, for our transportation.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and so there’s a bunch of things going on here. I’m going to comment a little bit to the best of my knowledge. Basically, one of the biggest, I guess you could call it a fallacy, and this is something that I interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough about, but this is something that’s reflected through a number of different experts. Essentially asymptomatic testing doesn’t make a ton of sense, okay?
Because there isn’t significant spread of the virus through people that are asymptomatic, you test positive. There’s also a lot of false positives, okay, in testing. So basically, if people are being tested and then they need to wait 10 … Because they tested positive, they need to wait 10-days and they were asymptomatic—that isn’t terribly meaningful. If they were symptomatic, it is actually incredibly meaningful.
Mr. Patel: Right.
Mr. Jekielek: Right? And so, these two things are conflated. Another thing, which is actually really interesting is that Delta seems to have a much longer trajectory of the disease, whereas Omicron seems to go like this. It’s actually very quick. So the new guidelines might … if we’re talking about symptomatic people, right, which the symptoms seemed to approximate the common cold a lot more than what Delta and previous variants were, basically it might actually be more reflective of reality of what the scientists say. Again, I’m not an expert on this, but this is what I’ve learned.
Mr. Patel: And before we get to the DOD case, just one more quick point on this. They also, the CDC, they not only cut the time period in half, which I’m personally for, because I think it’s ludicrous to be making the decisions they’re making based on the political wins and the media narratives, but they then instituted a testing requirement during the 5-day quarantine requirement.
The problem is, as we see across America, tests aren’t available. And if they’re available, they’re very, very, very expensive. So now people have to come out of pocket, even though this administration has said they would make tests widely available for free. So now they’ve cut the time period in half and essentially doubled the demand for testing, and the demand can’t be met. So how is our population, how is our citizenry supposed to have faith in these decisions? I just don’t think they can.
Mr. Jekielek: No, absolutely. And just one last plug is why don’t we seriously assess this question of who needs to be tested, right? And what the symptoms should be for you to actually need to go get a test.
Mr. Patel: That would be great.
Mr. Jekielek: Why does everybody need to get tested? It doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.
Mr. Patel: I’m with you because these testing companies are making a fortune, but that’s another topic. But I think one of the things we want to talk about is previously, and I think you and I were correct in predicting how the legal landscape would go in these cases when the military, when these vaccine mandates were issued against our service members, that is our service men and women in uniform, across all branches in the military. And one of the leading cases was against a bunch of Navy Seals who said, we have a religious right not to be vaccinated. And we should not have to choose between being vaccinated and serving our country as we’ve chosen to serve.
And they took their case to federal court. And I think we predicted a few weeks on our program that they would win. And they just did win an injunction in federal court. And the shocking part of that injunction is not that it was issued, but the judge’s language in the injunction. He said he went out of his way to tell the government that even though the government had “set up an application process for people to apply for an exemption, the government’s attorneys had made it impossible for an exemption to be granted.” So, the judge called them out on basically their false pretext of an application for exemption, which is shocking, right?
You’re saying you, the government are telling DOD members, oh, well, you can apply for an exemption, but the test is jury-rigged. And the judge called him out on that. So, the Seals won their injunction. And there’s over a thousand military members that have been kicked out of the military because of the vaccine mandate requirements. I think the case of these 35 some Seals is the first one that is going to cause a lot of change in the policies of the Department of Defense. And I’m glad this judge issued the injunction. But it’s just step one.
Mr. Jekielek: Okay. And this is really fascinating. So, there’s a thousand service members who presumably really care about the military.
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: They also have very significant reasons why they don’t want to basically be vaccinated. Now, can they come back to the military after this?
Mr. Patel: Well, so the fascinating question for our soldiers or airmen or marine,. and I think personally is having run the Department of defense as Chief of Staff, they should never have been put in this position of choosing between service and this vaccine mandate. It could have been handled entirely differently, but now it’s going to the courts.
I think there will be a way for these individuals because nobody forced them to sign up to wear the uniform and serve our country. They chose to do it and thankfully they did. And I hope there’s a way for them to get back in. I think the courts are going to see that they should not have to choose between service and vaccine mandate.
And from just a legal perspective, I think the courts are already starting to realize that the rig system that DOD had in place for exemptions was just that, rigged. So, if it was rigged to begin with, from the beginning and they knew the outcome could not lead to any exemptions, then that is legally flawed for the government to demand the mandate. And that’s what the government, or excuse me, that’s what the judges called.
Mr. Jekielek: So, you’re saying, is this another lawsuit now against the government that’s going to happen? Or is it this judge who’s going to be doing something with this question?
Mr. Patel: No, this judge issued the injunction.
Mr. Jekielek: Got that, right.
Mr. Patel: And so now the case will go to quote/unquote, “the next phase of the trial process,” where the government will have to argue why their testing procedures and exemption requirements actually meet muster. And I don’t think they’re going to be able to do that. And then although a good thing is all the while these Seals will be able to stay in and serve. Their service will not be impacted. That’s the critical thing.
And I think that injunction will hopefully be expanded upon by other judges who are hearing similar cases from other soldiers, conventional soldiers in the Marine Corps and elsewhere. And they’ll also say, well, a federal judge issued an injunction here. I’m going to issue a similar injunction in these cases. As we’ve always said, are going to collectively rise to federal court and end up in the Supreme court for a ruling.
Mr. Jekielek: If the judge finds or this case just reveals that indeed it is jury-rigged exactly like you described, is that a cause for lawsuits against the government?
Mr. Patel: Yes, that’s a whole wave … Actually, I didn’t think about it. That’s a whole wave of litigation that these individuals can bring against the government, not just for forcing them to choose between service and vaccine, but for putting them through the scenario in the first place if the measure the government enacted was unlawful. And I think that’s what’s happened here and it’s what’s going to happen in a lot of other cases.
Mr. Jekielek: Oh, absolutely fascinating. Well, let’s jump to the Elizabeth Holmes trial.
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: Right? Theranos, just fascinating, right? I mean, found guilty on a number of charges, but then on a number of charges, it’s even unclear whether these might need to be retried. Tell me about this.
Mr. Patel: Yes. So just to remind our audience, so Elizabeth Holmes ran Theranos, the blood machine company, and people forget the company was valued at nine billion at its peak—with a B. They had some of the most prominent investors in the world that included people like Betsy DeVos, and also individuals of great notoriety. Former secretaries of defense were on her advisory board, so this was a pretty big company. And so she was charged with over, I think, 12 to 14 counts in federal court.
She was convicted on four and we’ll talk about in the second. She was convicted on three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. She was acquitted on a few counts and so those could never be retried, but the jury was hung on three to four separate counts relating to fraud.
So what does that mean? Let’s go on reverse. So in terms of a hung jury that basically says us as jurors could not reach a unanimous agreement on those three to four counts, the government has to make a decision. Do we retry Elizabeth Holmes on those three to four counts? They can, but as you saw, this trial was pretty taxing, pretty lengthy and involves a lot of victims and a lot of complicated stuff. So, do they want to go through that effort? They’ll have to weigh that, knowing that they already achieved convictions in four counts.
Now let’s turn to those four counts. I think Elizabeth Holmes’ problem is, as a former federal prosecutor, what drives the amount of time someone who’s been convicted in fraud cases in terms of prison sentence is the amount of the fraud. So, there’s these things called the United States sentencing guidelines, which are advisory, but every judge or prosecutor and defense attorney has to look at them and submit them to the court. And the bigger the scam monetarily, the more time she’s looking at in prison.
So just looking at the three to four counts she was convicted of. She’s looking at over $150 million of fraud. That is the highest fraud amount in the United States sentencing guidelines, I believe off the top of my head, or the second to highest. So, while she won’t get the maximum, which is 20 years per count, she’s looking at significant jail time.
In my opinion, she’s looking at, at least a decade on just the counts she was convicted. But not to get into the weeds, but we’re going to, is victim rights are a big thing in this case, right? And how the victim’s rights are spoken for in a case like this or the Maxwell case, which we’ll talk about in a second. In a fraud case, each count has to have a victim tied to it.
So not only were there high wealth individuals who were defrauded, but what about all the medium wealth individuals? What about all the lower wealth individuals? So unfortunately, none of the counts she was convicted of speak to any of the medium to lower wealth individuals, everyday Americans. Those counts were either … they were acquitted on, excuse me, she was acquitted on, or it was led to a hung jury on some of those counts.
The counts she was convicted of on the fraud counts were for defrauding Betsy DeVos, for defrauding a hedge fund, and for defrauding another high net worth individual. So, while it’s good that the victims had their day in court, I can see why some of the victims will still be outraged because their actual day in court was not met. And I think that gets lost in the whole suit of this 14 count, complicated trial process.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, and it’s most of the victims actually, isn’t it?
Mr. Patel: Right.
Mr. Jekielek: Yes.
Mr. Patel: Because we’re just talking about three that the convictions were found in. So, it said she defrauded scores of victims, I believe. So, none of those matters will ever be heard unless the government retries some of those fraud counts that she was found or that they were hung on, as we say. So, it’s going to be months. As you know, in federal court, once you’re convicted, the sentencing doesn’t happen for two to three months.
Now the unique thing about her case is that since the government obtained some convictions, at least in four counts, they can measure that against whether they want to try the other four counts that they were hung on—the jury was hung on.
What usually happens in cases like this, and I’ve dealt with them, is that Elizabeth Holmes will appeal the convictions she was found guilty of. And the government will try to negotiate an agreement where they say, you can appeal, which is your constitutional right. And if those appeals are upheld, then we, the government can choose to retry you on the counts the jury was hung on or not. It’s up to the discretion of the government. They can wait. They can retry her any time they want, but they’ll probably do that just because of judicial expediency. Instead of clogging the courts, they’ll say, well, let’s see what the appeals court say.
If they affirm her convictions, the government has a much stronger platform to even plead the case out and just say, look, we’re not going to retry you. Or they go to court and they ask for a harsh prison sentence and they get it. And then the government could just easily be like, well, while we haven’t represented all the victims in terms of a conviction, we got a sentence of, and I’m just making this up, 10 to 15 years, which I think is punishment sufficient from a government’s perspective. And they could say, we’re not going to retry it because of the cost associated with this type of trial.
Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. Basically, we could end up in a situation where again, most of the victims don’t really get any redress.
Mr. Patel: One of the jurors spoke out. This is the unique thing about this case. Jurors never, ever have to speak out about their service. Judges remind them of that when they’re there, during the trial, and before they leave. It’s the last thing judges tell them, you never have to speak to anyone about your service on this jury. And one of the jurors spoke out and they said that they actually believed Elizabeth Holmes, which is interesting because intent is a big requirement in a fraud case. The person has to knowingly and intentionally defraud an investor or a possible investor.
But they said just because she believed it doesn’t mean the jury believed that she didn’t intend to defraud, which is very interesting. Usually, you just find the person so unbelievable that you don’t come to that conclusion, but it was interesting for a juror to come out and say that, which actually bodes well for Elizabeth Holmes, because she could use some of that information to bolster her appellate rights in her appellate situation. But it was fascinating to see that a juror actually came out and spoke.
Mr. Jekielek: Yeah, absolutely fascinating, frankly. Well, let’s jump to Ghislaine Maxwell. Now this is the thing, so I’ll just tell you the thing that I’m most curious about, probably a lot of people are very curious about, is that of course she did get convicted on a number of very serious charges. At the same time, the little black book, the people that were involved in said charges that she was convicted of remain unknown.
Mr. Patel: Yeah. Here’s the good and the bad with federal judicial orders. They’re airtight, they don’t leak. If there’s a federal seal, like there is in this case, we will not hear about it or the contents under the seal, as we say, unless a federal judge comes in and vacates or lifts that order. Then I think that’s good for our judicial system because it upholds the rigidity of it and allows for people to have their due process rights met, but also allows for the government to bring a case.
Now, I don’t know the reasons why the black book was withheld. Maybe the government has said for purposes of this trial, we need it under seal, because they’re working on other matters related to it, other prosecutions related to it, and they don’t want that information out just yet.
I’ve had prosecutions where I’ve asked the judge to withhold some of our most intriguing, compelling evidence because I said, we’ve sustained the level of evidence we need in this case, but we’re working on cases two, three, and four, and we need some of that information there to prosecute them down the road. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that is one scenario in which this thing such as a black book would remain under seal if the government asks for it to.
Now, one thing I can say with pretty sure confirmation is that there isn’t anything in that black book that exonerates Ghislaine Maxwell, because if there were that information would have to have been provided to Ms. Maxwell for purposes of her trial. It’s what’s called Brady evidence or evidence of exculpatory information. It must be provided to the defense.
And likely, if there was anything that exonerated her, the defense would’ve used it. They wouldn’t have just sat on it. So, it’s pretty telling that the defense, as far as I’m aware, didn’t look to lift the seal or didn’t fight it, but I’m not sure what their exact reasoning was. I can only speculate based on my appearance.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, I mean the bottom line is most people are … there’s probably a lot of very powerful people in there. Right?
Mr. Patel: Well, look, it’s no secret that it’s been reported who Jeffrey Epstein used to hob knob around with and who he used to fly his private island. Prince Andrew is still in the middle of this court ordeal, right? One of the victims from the Jeffrey Epstein case, Ms. Giuffre, is suing Prince Andrew in federal court. And so far that case is not going really well for Prince Andrew. I think it’s up for a hearing this week or early next week as to whether or not Prince Andrew will have to appear in federal court in America.
It’s a civil case that she’s suing him for, but what she’s suing him for is the underlying criminal conduct she’s alleging, that Prince Andrew forcibly had sex with her while she was underage, that is under the age of 18, which has been something that’s been out there reported in the tabloids and in the media and in the news that there’s this famous picture of Prince Andrew with his arm around this victim who was underage at the time.
And Prince Andrew did a BBC interview and said, oh, I don’t remember her. I don’t know her. And then there was this photo. And then there was that weird interaction on the interview where he said, well, she said that the individual attacked her sweats a lot. And Prince Andrew said, “I can’t sweat. I have a medical issue.”
But to bring this to full circle in federal court, in that case with Prince Andrew and the victim, Prince Andrew’s defense lawyers admitted they could not provide any medical information to support Prince Andrew’s claim about he can’t sweat. So, it’s these little details that matter in these types of big federal cases. And that’s a civil offshoot of the criminal matter that I know we were talking about the black book stuff, but I think you’ll see more and more other offshoots, especially civilly in the whole Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell saga.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, so there’s also this whole intrigue around one of the jurors. I haven’t thought about this, but this could potentially, completely change the game in a way that I think a lot of people aren’t ready. I think I said this earlier here, right?
Mr. Patel: Yes, and we discussed in the Holmes case that it’s very rare for a juror to come out and speak. Let’s just set the stage. This could be legally disastrous for the prosecution because when you appeal, when the defendant appeals a conviction, one of the areas in which appeals are granted for the defense, that is a reversal is issued, is juror selection. It’s one of the biggest areas.
If there’s a mistake made in jury selection, then that is one of the areas that is most often what we call the cause for reversible error. So, what happened this week? And I wasn’t even really looking for it, but one of the jurors in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, and as we all know, the Ghislaine Maxwell case had to do with sexual oriented attacks—sexual abuse and things like that.
So naturally during jury selection, all the prospective jurors would’ve been asked about, have you been a victim of sexual abuse? Do you know anyone who was a victim of sexual abuse? Just like in a murder case. We would ask, I as a public defender or a federal prosecutor would ask the jury pool, has someone in your family been victimized? Have they been the victim of a murder? Do you know anyone who’s been murdered?
Those are relevant questions because what are you screening for in jury selection? You’re screening for bias and bias that you may not be aware of. Some people just can’t put aside their bias because it’s so close to them. That’s what you’re screening for.
0In the Maxwell case, there was a juror who recently came out and reported [to] the media that he doesn’t recall if he remembers disclosing … he either was himself or actually knows someone close to him in his family who is a victim of sexual abuse. Now, if that proves to be true, it’s catastrophic for the prosecution. And on the flip side, it is almost handing the defense in the Maxwell case reversible error across the board and getting her a new trial.
Mr. Jekielek: And this is something that actually you can’t really … the prosecution didn’t do anything wrong here. Right?
Mr. Patel: Right. No, this is a great point, Jan. Usually when you’re talking, and I’ve picked 60 juries, when you either the defense or the prosecution are communicating with the jury, you’re laying a record that the court reporter’s taking down for the appellate court. And what the defense is doing is looking to establish a record that someone might be biased. What the prosecution is doing is looking to establish the record by…even though that information was brought out and rightfully so, this person can set aside those biases and be a neutral arbiter. And that’s the judge’s ultimate responsibility as well.
But as you alluded, if the juror isn’t forthcoming with that information that’s directly relevant to the charges in the case, then it’s not on the prosecution or the defense or the judge. They didn’t know, but the fact that they didn’t know doesn’t absolve the appellate issue. In this instance, if this pans out, if this reporting pans out to be true, I would think that Ghislaine Maxwell will probably receive another trial. Can you imagine if the world has to go through this yet again?
Mr. Jekielek: Yes, it’s again, fascinating, to use my favorite word here, but it really is the nuance of this.
Mr. Patel: The other thing I think we should talk about is the sentencing stuff, right? So, a lot of people related to the black book have come out and said Ghislaine Maxwell’s now going to come out and just sing a song about everybody that was ever involved with anything Epstein.
It was interesting. Her brother, Ghislaine Maxwell’s brother, came out and did an interview or gave a statement in the media to say, his sister will not be cooperating with the government and providing information on anyone. So, you would think her brother’s statement came from his conversation with his sister. And if that’s the case, then she’s not going to be singing a song about anybody.
But the other thing people I think don’t understand is once the government’s achieved an actual conviction, there’s a much less desire for the government to go to the defendant and say, hey, we just did all this work to prosecute you and take you to a jury trial and convict you in federal court of multiple accounts. You want to tell us about what happened? Federal prosecutors are much less motivated to do that once a conviction has been stand.
The time to cooperate is before trial because of the resources involved in going to trial. Most people don’t know this, but less than four percent of federal cases go to trial, most are resolved by the plea process. So that just shows you how much effort and resources are involved in an actual trial.
So I don’t agree with people saying out there that she’s now going to go and tattle on all these people in the black book and things like that, because the impetus is gone for the prosecutors. They have a conviction.
The new twist is the juror stuff. If the juror stuff proves to be a reversible error, the prosecutors have to rejigger the entire landscape. And maybe they go back to her and say, look, this will be reversible error. How about we resolve this whole case with a plea agreement? Maybe that happens. Everything’s back on the table once you find a reversible error. Maybe Ghislaine Maxwell will go in and say, no, we’re going to trial. We’re trying the whole thing all over again.
So, it is an unfortunately … and we were talking about victims earlier. In this case, I think one of the unique things that the trial judge in this case was he allowed maybe, I think it was eight to 12 of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to come in at the conviction and speak their mind briefly, which as a victim, that’s part of the healing process. And that’s what you would want our judicial system to do.
Normally that’s done at the sentencing stage, which wouldn’t be for two to three months, but this judge afforded the victims’ the right to speak at the conviction with Ghislaine Maxwell in the room, which I think was unique and probably the right decision to help the victims heal with everything they had been through.
And I wonder if they’ll be back at sentencing to speak to the matter. I think they probably will. If not, they’ll submit written submissions and probably ask for … Look, Ghislaine Maxwell, if she’s sentenced as the sentencing guidelines recommend for the charges she was convicted of, she’s going away to prison for the rest of her life.
Mr. Jekielek: Well, it’ll be really interesting to see how this all pans out in all these cases, frankly.
Mr. Patel: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: Right? So Kash, I think it’s time for our shout out.
Mr. Patel: So this week’s shout out goes to Nancy Merrill Justice. Thank you for your comments on our board for Kash’s Corner, and thank you, everybody else. Jan and I read through those diligently, so please keep posting, and we’ll keep reading them, and we appreciate your suggestions. And we’ll see you next week on Kash’s Corner.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.