Brendan Pierson, Luc Cohen

NEW YORK (Reuters) – British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell is going to appeal her conviction https://www.reuters.com/world/us/maxwell-jury-resume-deliberations-after-judge-warns-omicron-risk-2021-12-29 for setting up teenage girls to have sexual encounters with financier Jeffrey Epstein, but experts said she will struggle to clear the high legal bar needed to overturn the verdict.

U.S. district judge Alison Nathan was harsh with the defense throughout the three-month-long trial. He denied requests to have witnesses anonymously testify and one to stop lawyers from two accusers taking the stand.

According to legal experts, Maxwell’s attorneys are most likely to refer such rulings when appealing her convictions on five out of six charges, which include sex trafficking.

However, to be successful her lawyers will have to prove Nathan’s violation of federal evidence rules or abuse her discretion.

Bobbi Sternheim, Maxwell’s attorney, told reporters that they had already begun working on the appeal and were confident she would be found guilty. She did not give any legal reasons.

Maxwell’s attorneys would have to prove that Nathan committed a mistake even if the appellate court agrees. Bennett Gershman of Pace Law School says that a “harmless mistake” does not suffice to reverse a conviction.

Gershman acknowledged that it is “a heavy burden” and noted that the federal appellate courts are more likely to support trial judges.

The defense could appeal by arguing that Kate’s testimony was not admissible.

Nathan explained to the jury, despite Kate being described in indictment in victim status, that Kate was in fact over the age for consent at the time she had alleged interactions with Epstein. Nathan stated that they could consider Kate’s testimony, if necessary.

“While that court reduced that testimony and provided the jury with an appropriate limiting instruction”, Sarah Krissoff, a Day Pitney partner and former federal prosecutor, stated that the defense could continue to claim that Kate’s witness should not have been excluded.

Nathan’s suggestion to the jury, that Maxwell could be found guilty of Epstein’s misconduct, was also opposed by the defense. A legal concept known under “conscious avoidance”, Nathan instructed them to ignore Epstein’s evidence.

Maxwell’s lawyers claimed that Maxwell was an active part of the prosecution’s case and that Maxwell wasn’t a passive bystander. Prosecutors were accused of trying to “have both sides”.

Nathan finally allowed Nathan’s instruction, after noting how the defense tried to demonstrate during opening statements and cross examination of witnesses that Maxwell had no knowledge of Epstein’s actions.

Krissoff indicated that Maxwell faces a tough fight to challenge the conviction for conscious avoidance. The government had presented evidence supporting such charges.

Maxwell’s attorneys may appeal Nathan’s decision that three witnesses in defense cannot testify anonymously.

Maxwell had four witnesses who testified to Maxwell under pseudonyms, or only used their first names as they were victims of sexual abuse.

Nathan said that privacy concerns didn’t apply to defense witnesses, as they were not intending to testify to sensitive subjects or sexual conduct.

Gershman stated that Maxwell’s attorneys waited to request anonymity until the very end of the trial in order to hamper any appeal.

He said, “If they believed this to be a serious concern they should have raised it before the trial.”