A federal judge says parts of a Ghislaine Maxwell transcript are too 'sensational and impure' to be shown to the public

• Transcript segments in Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case are too lurid to be unsealed, a judge ruled.
• Maxwell faces trial over allegations of sexual abuse and lying about it in a deposition.

A federal judge ordered Thursday to keep parts of a transcript filed for Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal case under seal, ruling that its disclosure would do nothing more than cater to the desire to know things that are "sensational and impure."

"Those portions of the transcript, which were redacted in the civil matter, concern privacy interests and their disclosure would merely serve to cater to a 'craving for that which is sensational and impure,'" Judge Alison Nathan wrote in a ruling reviewed by Insider, citing precedent from a different court decision. "The Court thus concludes that such redactions are justified."

Nathan's decision comes as federal prosecutors in Manhattan and Maxwell's attorneys clash over what evidence may be unsealed ahead of Maxwell's trial, currently scheduled for July.

Maxwell was arrested in July 2020 on charges related to grooming and sexually abusing young girls with the now-dead financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Prosecutors also secured a perjury indictment that alleged Maxwell lied about her activities in a deposition she took for a civil lawsuit brought by Virginia Giuffre, one of her accusers. Nathan didn't specify which transcript she wanted to remain redacted.

In her Thursday ruling, Nathan did agree that other exhibits prosecutors sought to unseal could have their redactions removed from public court filings.

Previous un-redactions of Maxwell's deposition transcripts mostly show her dodging questions about her and Epstein's relationships with famous figures like Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton.

Deposition transcripts from other people involved in the case include details alleging that she and Epstein directed underage girls to conduct sexual performances.

Maxwell's lawyers have sought to minimize the importance of Maxwell's depositions, arguing in February that the perjury charge against her should be dropped because she didn't understand what "sexual activities" meant when asked about it during a deposition.

"Ms. Maxwell was asked if she 'was aware of the presence' of 'sex toys' or 'devices' used 'in sexual activities' in Epstein's Palm Beach house," her attorneys wrote in the February filing. "The question was objected to for many reasons: it was compound and vague, contained numerous undefined terms, and lacked foundation."

"It is entirely unclear how someone may 'be aware of the presence' of these, apparently, spectral objects," the attorneys continued. "What exactly is a 'device' used in 'sexual activities?' Would bath oil, a tub, or a table qualify?"

Nathan rejected the argument and did not drop the perjury indictment from her case.