The criminal appeal docket
The Second Circuit affirmed Maxwell’s conviction on September 17, 2024, in case 22-1426. The court held that Epstein’s Florida non-prosecution agreement did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution in the Southern District of New York. Maxwell sought Supreme Court review. The docket for Maxwell v. United States, No. 24-1073, records that the Court denied the petition on October 6, 2025.
The lower court’s written opinion supplies the appellate reasoning. The Supreme Court’s denial left that judgment in place. The petition presents the issues Maxwell wanted reviewed and the opposition presents the government’s response. Cite the opinion for its holding and the Supreme Court docket for the later disposition.
The separate case brought by Courtney Wild
In re Courtney Wild involved the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the earlier Florida investigation. On April 15, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc held that the statute did not authorize Wild to enforce the asserted rights through a standalone civil action in the absence of a preexisting criminal proceeding. That is a ruling on the procedure available under the statute in the circumstances before the court.
The opinion and dissenting views explain why the case generated sharply different readings of the law. To report the decision accurately, start with the majority’s holding and identify any dissent separately. The procedural result is distinct from whether victims received adequate notice or treatment. The Justice Department’s professional responsibility review addressed the department’s conduct in a different type of proceeding.
Where the records connect
Both cases have been discussed in accounts of the Florida non-prosecution agreement. Maxwell’s appellate records concern her own federal criminal case. Wild’s proceeding concerned the mechanism for asserting victims’ rights. Reading both can show how a single historical agreement became relevant to litigation in different courts, for different reasons and under different rules.
A reliable timeline should give each ruling its own case name, court, date, issue and outcome. This avoids presenting a legal argument in one case as the finding of a court in another. The court’s opinion supplies the reasoning. A docket supplies the sequence and can show whether a party later asked another court for review.