Ghislaine Maxwell is seeking to have her sex trafficking conviction overturned.

She has taking her case to the US Supreme Court requesting that they hear her appeal against a 2021 conviction on five counts of aiding convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in his sexual abuse of young girls.

Her lawyers filed a 159-page Petition to the highest court in the country on Thursday asking the Supreme Court Justices to throw out her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking.

Maxwell is serving her sentence in Tallahassee State Prison, in Florida.

The Mail Online reports: The former close friend of Prince Andrew continues to vehemently deny all the charges against her and is asking the Supreme Court to throw out the conviction which could end up with her walking free.

Maxwell argues she should never have been charged as Epstein’s ‘co-conspirator’ because of a 2007 plea deal Epstein made in Florida in which he agreed to plead guilty to two counts of child sex abuse and served 13-months in jail in exchange for any of his ‘co-conspirators’ avoiding prosecution.

A federal appeals judge rejected her appeal last year, saying the Southern District of New York – where Maxwell was tried – was not covered by the Florida deal.

Now Maxwell’s lawyers are begging the Supreme Court to ‘decide once and for all’ whether the non-prosecution deal made in Florida should have applied to Maxwell.

In their lengthy petition, Maxwell’s lawyers said: ‘Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein.’

The lawyers argue that different legal jurisdictions have different rules when it comes to honoring a plea deal made in a different state.

The petition, written by Maxwell’s high-powered lawyer David Markus, added: ‘A defendant should be able to rely on a promise that the United States will not prosecute again, without being subject to a gotcha in some other jurisdiction that chooses to interpret that plain language promise in some other way.’