How did Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team argue against the sex trafficking charges?

1. "Not Epstein": the central theme the defense sold to jurors

From opening statements through witness selection, lead defense attorney Bobbi Sternheim repeatedly told jurors that “the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell are for things that Jeffrey Epstein did — but she is not Jeffrey Epstein,” seeking to separate Maxwell’s actions and intent from Epstein’s and to portray her as a scapegoat for his crimes ^{[1] [6]}. The defense explicitly argued Maxwell was being tried “in lieu of Epstein,” contending prosecutors had not proven she acted as the prosecution described ^{[2] [7]}.

2. Undermining witnesses: memory, drugs, motives and "false memories"

A major pillar of the defense was to undercut the credibility of accusers by highlighting past drug and alcohol use, alleged mental-health issues, and financial motives, and by introducing expert testimony about false memories to suggest recollections could be unreliable ^{[5] [4]}. Defense questioning repeatedly focused on how substance use or time might have affected memories, aiming to seed reasonable doubt about key details connecting Maxwell to recruitment or participation ^{[5] [3]}.

3. Character witnesses and the risk of contradiction

Maxwell’s team called multiple character witnesses—including people who knew Epstein and Maxwell—to portray her as a demanding but respectable employer and friend; reports noted some witnesses admitted memory problems themselves, which undercut the defense’s attack on accusers’ recollections ^{[3] [8]}. Journalists and analysts observed that defense witnesses “did not seem to provide anything substantial” that overwhelmingly aided Maxwell and that one witness’s memory issues were notably damaging to the strategy ^{[9] [3]}.

4. Limited scope and pace: a short, focused defense that chose not to put Maxwell on the stand

The defense rested after only two days and nine witnesses, and Maxwell declined to testify, telling the judge she saw “no need” to because the prosecution had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ^{[3] [7]}. Observers characterized the defense presentation as concise but at times “lackluster,” with some planned witnesses not producing decisive exculpatory evidence ^{[10] [9]}.

5. Tactical parallels to other high-profile sexual-abuse defenses

Commentators noted the defense mirrored older playbooks used in sexual-abuse trials—aggressively cross-examining accusers’ credibility and suggesting financial or reputational motives—echoing strategies seen in the Cosby case and other high-profile trials ^{[5] [11]}. Legal analysts flagged the gamble inherent in such an approach: it can create reasonable doubt for jurors, but also risk backlash for appearing to attack victims.

6. What observers and press identified as weaknesses in the defense rollout

Multiple outlets reported the defense strategy risked backfiring: failed late attempts to bring some witnesses, a small witness slate, and character testimony that sometimes admitted memory problems made the defense appear fragile and uneven ^{[10] [9] [3]}. Newsrooms summarized that the prosecution’s detailed case and the defense’s short presentation left questions about whether the strategy achieved its aim ^{[1] [9]}.

7. What available sources do not mention

Available sources do not mention any specific plea negotiations tied to the trial period covered here, nor do they report detailed bench rulings on admissibility beyond the witness selection and memory-expert references cited (not found in current reporting). They also do not provide a complete list of all witnesses the defense planned to call before resting (not found in current reporting).

Sources cited in this piece reflect contemporaneous reporting on Maxwell’s defense strategy and courtroom tactics: reporting and analysis in Forbes, New York Daily News, Rolling Stone, Reuters, NPR, Washington Post, Newsweek and related outlets as indexed above ^{[1] [5] [3] [4] [2] [7] [9] [10]}.