Ghislaine Maxwell has asked a New York judge to dismiss her pending criminal child sex case. Her legal team has filed several motions arguing for the dismissal. The British socialite and her lawyers cite several reasons the charges against her should be thrown out, with the most controversial being that she is protected by a plea agreement that was aimed at her late partner, Jeffrey Epstein. Additionally, Maxwell and her lawyers argue that the grand jury that indicted her was not made up of a diverse enough pool.

Maxwell and Defense Cite Epstein’s 'Sweetheart Deal'

The plea agreement that Maxwell's defense has referred to in their motion to dismiss was issued by ex-federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta in 2007. In the agreement, Epstein pled guilty to state crimes in Florida as well as one relating to payment for sexual services offered by underage girls. Epstein also had to file as a registered sex offender.

In return for his guilty plea, former prosecutor Acosta did not prosecute Epstein with federal charges of sexual misconduct with minors. The plea agreement also stated that it would not prosecute several suspected co-conspirators.

This 'sweetheart deal' was met with harsh criticism and eventually lead to an internal Justice Department investigation. While the investigation described Acosta's handling of the case as an "exercise in poor judgment," there was no indication that Acosta had broken the law.

As part of the plea agreement, Epstein served only 13 months behind bars and was allowed to leave the prison for several hours each day on work release.

Although Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not name Maxwell as a co-conspirator, Maxwell's defense argues that she is entitled to the protections that it offers.

Additional Motions Filed Including Lack of Diversity in Jury Pool

In another motion seeking dismissal of her charges, Maxwell's defense argues that the grand jury pool is not diverse enough. The defense argued that the indictment was issued from a Westchester County suburb, White Plains, while the charges in the indictment took place in Manhattan. Her defense argues that because of this, Maxwell is not being tried by a jury that is comprised of a fair representation of the community.

The motion explains, “At no point ... has the government alleged that Ms. Maxwell engaged in any unlawful conduct in the White Plains Division, or that any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracies occurred in the White Plains Division.”

The motion adds, “The government thus violated Ms. Maxwell’s Sixth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury drawn from a fair-cross section of the community.”

The executive director of the Center on Race, Inequality, and the Law at the New York University School of Law, Vincent Southerland, shared with The Washington Post, “The fact that she’s a White woman raising this claim about having a grand jury pool that’s not representative of the jurisdiction where she’s being tried — while it might be jarring on its face, it’s kind of well within the bounds of the ways in which these type of claims get raised.

In another unusual motion filed, her defense team also argued that the charges against her were too vague and that they were “based largely on vaguely stated, non-criminal acts of so-called ‘grooming.’” Her defense argues that because of the vagueness of the charges, her team is unable to put together a proper defense.

The latest development in the case against Maxwell is another twist in the strange saga of Maxwell and her role in Epstein's twisted world of sexual misconduct with underage girls.

Maxwell was arrested last July on charges of helping recruit minors for Epstein's child sexual abuse ring between the years 1994 and 1997. Maxwell has pled not guilty to the charges and was denied bail even after she had put up more than $20 million. Her bail was denied on the grounds that she was a flight risk. Her trial is set to take place in July.