Carolyn Andriano

UpdatedOctober 7, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

Field	Documented information
Public identity	Carolyn Andriano, an Epstein survivor and prosecution witness in the federal criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell
Trial name	Carolyn, her actual first name, used without her surname to protect her privacy
Principal testimony	December 7, 2021, United States v. Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330, Southern District of New York
Place in the case	The Palm Beach survivor whose testimony supported the substantive child sex trafficking charge in Count Six
Age at recruitment credited by the court	Fourteen; the government placed the initial encounter in 2001. Earlier records and trial answers contained date and age discrepancies examined by the defense
Account of Maxwell’s conduct	Scheduling appointments, arranging transport, collecting contact information, making some payments and personally touching her sexually
Civil proceedings	Earlier litigation against Epstein and Sarah Kellen, followed by an award through the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program
Public identification	Spoke under her full name in a January 2022 interview; her decision to waive anonymity was subsequently discussed in a court filing
Death	May 23, 2023; aged 36
Last checked	October 7, 2026

Carolyn Andriano’s sworn testimony placed the experience of a girl from Palm Beach County at the center of Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal trial. She described how a paid massage arrangement became repeated sexual abuse, how adult organizers kept appointments coming, and how additional payments encouraged girls already being exploited to bring friends. Her account concerned the operation of the Palm Beach household and the people who helped sustain it.

Judge Alison J. Nathan’s sentencing explanation specifically identified the betrayal in Maxwell’s treatment of Carolyn: she had disclosed earlier abuse and personal vulnerability to an adult who used that knowledge to facilitate further exploitation. The court treated Carolyn as a credible witness after extensive questioning. Her importance to the case rests on that testimony, its corroboration and the court’s findings, rather than on the circumstances of her later death.

Important Points

Carolyn was her real first name. Prosecutor Maurene Comey corrected the court when it initially described the name as a pseudonym. The anonymity protections still applied.
The judge credited recruitment at age fourteen and more than one hundred visits. The defense challenged her dates, recollection and earlier accounts; those challenges should be described alongside the court’s conclusions.
Her account directly implicated Maxwell in the arrangement of appointments and other practical assistance, as well as in a sexual touching incident.
A December 2009 deposition already named Maxwell as someone who called her and whom she contacted about appointments. It is inaccurate to say Maxwell first appeared in Carolyn’s account after Epstein died.
Her compensation had already been paid before trial. She testified that the verdict would not affect the award and that she had no financial stake in its outcome.
Credibility and precise chronology were different questions. The sentencing judge believed Carolyn but found insufficient proof of conduct during a particular two month period needed to apply a later sentencing guideline manual.
Her public identification was a personal choice documented after trial. It does not authorize exposing private family members, contact details or other survivors.
Police described her death as an accidental overdose. That reported determination is not evidence of a murder or an organized effort to silence witnesses.

Background and the Limits of the Public Biography

Carolyn’s account of her early life began in New York. She testified that she moved to Florida in 1999, attended middle school in Palm Beach Gardens and left school after seventh grade. These details mattered at trial because they established how young she was and the circumstances in which a promise of several hundred dollars could carry extraordinary weight.

Her testimony about conversations with Maxwell described disclosures of childhood sexual abuse and difficulties at home. The relevance was Maxwell’s knowledge of her vulnerability. At sentencing, the judge expressly found that Maxwell exploited what Carolyn had confided to her.

Her later testimony about treatment and family described drug treatment, therapy and the importance of protecting her children. Elsewhere in the testimony, she described hopes of becoming a massage therapist. Those statements show a person with family responsibilities and ambitions, alongside the harms she recounted. The court later credited her evidence after extensive questioning on her history and recollection.

How She Described Entering Epstein’s Palm Beach Household

Carolyn traced the introduction through her then boyfriend to Virginia Roberts Giuffre, whom she knew at the time as Virginia Roberts. She testified that Virginia offered a way to earn money by giving a massage to a wealthy friend on Palm Beach Island. Carolyn said she was fourteen when Virginia drove her to Epstein’s house, around spring or the approach of summer.

The first visit in her testimony began in the kitchen, where Maxwell greeted them. Carolyn said Maxwell introduced herself, and that she called her “Maxwell” because she had difficulty pronouncing her first name. According to Carolyn, Maxwell told Virginia to take her upstairs and show her what to do. She then described the bedroom and bathroom area in which a massage table was kept.

Her description of that first appointment distinguished it from later abuse: she said Epstein did not touch her on the first visit, although sexual activity occurred in her presence. She received $300. When she left, she said, Maxwell asked for her telephone number. This sequence matters because the testimony described an introduction followed by a continuing arrangement, rather than one undifferentiated event.

Carolyn estimated more than one hundred visits, sometimes two or three in a week. She said the encounters blended together in her memory, while certain incidents remained distinct. She placed the final visit at about age eighteen. The court later credited the overall frequency and her age at recruitment while separately examining the limits of the evidence about the final months of the conspiracy.

The Conduct She Attributed to Maxwell

Appointment scheduling was central to Carolyn’s account. She said Maxwell called during roughly the first year or two, with Sarah Kellen taking a larger scheduling role later. Carolyn also sometimes called the household herself. She explained the attraction of the payments in the context of being young and needing money. She continued to see Maxwell at the house after Kellen began making calls.

Calls and transport connected the household’s activities. Carolyn recalled occasions when Maxwell said she and Epstein were arriving from New York and asked whether Carolyn could be available. She said a cab or car was sometimes sent for her, with either Maxwell or Kellen advising her of the arrangement. At that age, she could not drive herself. Her testimony also described providing multiple contact numbers so the household could reach her.

Her account of a travel invitation was significant to knowledge of age. Carolyn said she told Maxwell she was fourteen and that her mother would not permit her to leave the country. She testified that scheduling calls nevertheless continued. The statement describes an invitation she declined; it does not establish that she traveled to Epstein’s island. Her central trial account concerned Palm Beach.

Carolyn also described direct sexual touching by Maxwell when she was fourteen, approaching fifteen. A detailed physical description is unnecessary to understand its evidentiary importance: Carolyn accused Maxwell of personal participation, not simply administrative assistance. She said Maxwell continued arranging appointments after seeing her unclothed in the massage room.

Payments and gifts provided additional details. Carolyn said Maxwell personally handed her cash on one or two occasions and asked for her home address so Epstein could send items. She recalled packages from Manhattan and gifts that included a book connected to her interest in massage therapy. Later judicial review identified shipping records as independent evidence relevant to the federal case.

Payments, Repeated Abuse and the Recruitment of Other Girls

Carolyn testified that the appointments involved sexual abuse and that Epstein asked whether she had friends her age or younger. She said she brought several friends. The payment increased when she brought someone: she described receiving $600 while the friend received $300. This was evidence of a system that rewarded the expansion of Epstein’s access to girls.

The government’s sentencing memorandum placed this recruitment pattern within the wider operation. It described girls brought into the household who were then paid to bring others. That framework does not erase harm suffered by a girl who introduced a friend, or the harm suffered by the friend. It explains why both facts can appear in the same survivor’s history.

The sentencing judge’s findings credited the evidence that the scheme encouraged girls to recruit one another. The judge considered Carolyn’s testimony about increased payments, Maxwell’s control of the household and her direct involvement in payments. This was a finding about the adults’ criminal operation. It should not be turned into an unsupported claim that Carolyn was prosecuted or convicted for the conduct she described.

The Earlier Investigation and Civil Litigation

Carolyn had spoken to the FBI in 2007, well before Maxwell’s arrest. At trial she acknowledged that the interview did not name Maxwell. She said she had described an older woman with dark hair and an accent and identified that person at trial as Maxwell. Asked why she had not provided the same details earlier, she said investigators had asked about Epstein.

A November 20, 2009 civil filing identifies her earlier litigation as C.M.A. v. Epstein, case number 08-80811. Epstein’s lawyers asked for permission for him to attend mediation and related proceedings despite a no contact order that they said might apply to Carolyn. The filing establishes litigation activity and the lawyers’ request; it is not itself an order granting that request or a finding resolving her claims. Its service list identifies Jack Scarola among counsel for C.M.A.

The trial record discussed lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen and a December 4, 2009 deposition. Carolyn said the case ended in a settlement. These proceedings preceded the estate’s later compensation program and the 2021 criminal trial. References to a settlement, a fund award and a criminal conviction therefore concern different processes.

Two deposition passages read at trial are particularly important. In the 2009 testimony, Carolyn said Epstein would have Sarah or Maxwell call her. In another passage, she said she spoke to Sarah or Maxwell when she called to arrange a visit. The prosecutor presented those statements in context, after defense counsel requested a fuller passage. They provide a dated record of Maxwell being named in her account long before the 2019 federal investigation.

December 7, 2021: Testifying Under Her First Name

The transcript records a specific privacy arrangement. Carolyn asked to testify using only her first name. The prosecutor clarified that it was not a pseudonym, and the judge maintained the restriction on exact courtroom sketches. The jury examined identifying material without the witness reading her full name or birth date aloud. The same record describes a childhood photograph admitted under seal to protect her anonymity.

Maurene Comey conducted direct examination, followed by cross examination by Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, further questions from Comey and a final round from Pagliuca. Carolyn’s evidence occupies much of that day’s proceedings. A full assessment includes her answers, the prior statements put to her, objections and rulings, rather than treating a lawyer’s question as an established fact.

Her explanation for giving evidence emphasized that she was not seeking money from the trial. She said, “Money will not ever fix what that woman has done to me.” Asked what the government had told her to do, she answered, “Just tell the truth.” These statements were part of her testimony, not a promise that testimony or a conviction would undo the harm.

What the Defense Challenged and How the Record Responded

The defense identified real inconsistencies in dates. A civil complaint placed the first visit in late May or early June 2002, when Carolyn was fifteen. Carolyn agreed that the document said this but called it inaccurate. Other exchanges concerned the period covered by her civil claims and the date used in her compensation submission. Near the end of redirect, she answered thirteen when asked her age at the first encounter, differing from her repeated earlier answers of fourteen. These differences belong in an accurate account.

Judge Nathan nevertheless credited the age of fourteen at sentencing and cited corroboration from Carolyn’s former boyfriend. The judge also accepted her estimate of more than one hundred visits and rejected the argument that Epstein’s travel schedule made it implausible. The conclusion was reached after the inconsistencies had been aired; it should not be described as though the defense never questioned them.

The 2007 omission of Maxwell’s name was another major line of questioning. Carolyn accepted that she had not named Maxwell in that interview and explained that Maxwell had not been its subject. The December 2009 deposition passages complicate any claim of a wholly new accusation: they expressly referenced Maxwell as a caller and household contact. The omission and the earlier named references should be presented together.

The prosecution and defense also examined credibility issues involving prior convictions, substance use and an acknowledged false answer in her 2009 deposition about later adult sex work. Carolyn said embarrassment explained that answer. She disputed a number of the defense’s interpretations of treatment records and earlier accounts. The jury heard these matters; the sentencing judge’s later credibility findings were not made in ignorance of them.

The court distinguished contradictions from selective readings. During disputes over civil pleadings, Judge Nathan allowed certain prior statements to be used and rejected others as cumulative, insufficiently inconsistent or otherwise inadmissible. A reference to an event in 2002 did not automatically contradict testimony that abuse began in 2001 and continued afterward. Equally, an actual disagreement about the first visit was permitted to be examined.

The Compensation Evidence

The precise figures emerged during cross examination. The defense referred to a $3.25 million award. After looking at the document, Carolyn identified $2,804,000 as the payment. She agreed that $446,000 previously paid on her claims against Epstein and Kellen had been subtracted. The record therefore distinguishes the stated award before the offset from the later payment; the amounts should not be combined into a larger total that counts the earlier payment twice.

Her initial estimates had been less precise. On direct examination she approximated the earlier settlement at $250,000 and the fund amount as somewhere between $1 million and $3 million. The document based exchange supplied the more specific figures. Her uncertainty about the amounts is part of the record and should not be silently replaced with a claim that she recited every figure from memory.

Her testimony about the award’s timing and conditions was equally significant. She said the money had already been wired, that she was not awaiting more from the fund and that she understood her release prevented a lawsuit against Maxwell. She said the criminal verdict would not affect her award. On cross examination, the defense questioned the consequences of false information in a fund application. Those questions were part of a challenge to credibility, not a finding that she had submitted a fraudulent claim.

The compensation program and civil settlements belong in the history of redress for survivors. They are distinct from the government’s prosecution. Receiving compensation did not make the jury’s task a calculation of civil damages, and a payment figure does not measure the full personal impact of abuse.

Corroborating Evidence and What It Established

Record	Documented relevance	Necessary limit
Government Exhibit 11	Her birth certificate was identified at trial and reviewed by the jury.	Her full name and birth date were not read aloud during that exchange.
Government Exhibit 104	A photograph she identified as showing her at fourteen was admitted under seal.	The court restricted public access to the photograph to protect Carolyn’s anonymity.
December 2009 deposition passages	Named Maxwell and Kellen as people involved in calls and appointments.	The passages support those specific statements, rather than every detail later testified to.
Corroborating witness testimony	The judge cited the former boyfriend’s testimony when crediting her age at recruitment.	The finding concerns corroboration of her age at recruitment.
Palm Beach message pads	The judge identified contacts in spring and summer 2004.	The admitted messages did not establish the precise November or December 2004 conduct sought by the government at sentencing.
FedEx exhibits 801, 802 and 803	The later opinion identified packages from New York to Carolyn in Florida and Maxwell’s use of the same shipping account.	Shipping evidence addresses the corroboration and interstate commerce issues; it is not itself a recording of abuse.
The government’s address book discussion	The memorandum described entries bearing Carolyn’s name within the Palm Beach massage contacts.	An address book records contacts; inclusion alone does not establish that a person committed an offense.

Verdict, Sentencing and a Narrow Chronology Ruling

Count Six specifically concerned Carolyn, as the government explained in its sentencing submission. The jury returned a guilty verdict on that child sex trafficking count on December 29, 2021. Maxwell was found guilty on five of the six counts tried. The court later treated the three conspiracy counts as multiplicitous and entered judgment on one of them. The five guilty verdicts and the three counts in the final judgment describe different procedural stages.

The sentencing dispute over late 2004 illustrates why a witness can be believed without every date being established. Prosecutors sought use of the 2004 sentencing guidelines, effective November 1, 2004. Judge Nathan expressly credited Carolyn but found the record did not establish conduct furthering the charged trafficking conspiracy during November or December 2004, before she turned eighteen in early 2005.

The judge’s explanation identified the evidentiary gap. Trial message pads supported contacts earlier in 2004. An additional undated message offered at sentencing could not be placed confidently after November 1, while a March 2005 message fell after the relevant minor status period. The judge applied the 2003 guidelines. This ruling was not an acquittal on Count Six and did not reverse the finding that Carolyn had been trafficked.

Maxwell received a twenty year prison sentence on June 28, 2022, with concurrent sentences on Counts Three, Four and Six and five years of supervised release. In explaining the sentence, Judge Nathan singled out Maxwell’s exploitation of Carolyn’s disclosures and her direct participation in the abuse. Carolyn’s evidence was one part of the larger trial record supporting that judgment.

Later Judicial Review

The Second Circuit’s September 17, 2024 opinion affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. It rejected Maxwell’s arguments concerning Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement, the statute of limitations, juror issues, the response to a jury note and sentencing. The court’s description of the appeal expressly concerned the three offenses on which final judgment had been entered.

The August 25, 2026 postconviction opinion records that the Supreme Court denied review on October 6, 2025. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer then rejected Maxwell’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The opinion addressed claims based partly on materials released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act and concluded that they did not justify overturning the conviction.

Carolyn’s testimony remained relevant to that review. In rejecting a challenge to the interstate commerce evidence, Judge Engelmayer explained that the massage table was not the government’s only proof. He identified Carolyn’s testimony about packages from Manhattan, the FedEx records reflecting shipments to her while she was fifteen and invoices showing Maxwell’s use of the same account. The opinion supplies a specific example of how documentary evidence and survivor testimony worked together.

Choosing to Speak Publicly After Trial

A January 25, 2022 defense letter, filed as docket entry 589 on January 28, discussed Carolyn’s decision to identify herself publicly in a Daily Mail interview. It quoted her desire to be a voice for survivors and argued that her surname should no longer be redacted from a court exhibit. The filing is the defense’s request, not a general ruling that survivors surrender all privacy by speaking publicly.

Contemporaneous reporting on the January 2022 interview also covered Carolyn’s recollection that Virginia had told her in 2001 about an encounter with Prince Andrew. That was Carolyn’s report of what Virginia said, not a claim that Carolyn personally witnessed the alleged encounter. Andrew denied wrongdoing. The distinction matters: her criminal trial testimony about her own abuse and her later account of another person’s disclosure have different evidentiary foundations.

Virginia Giuffre’s separate civil case against Prince Andrew provides the relevant litigation context for that later interview. It should not be merged into Maxwell’s trial as though Andrew was a defendant in the prosecution in which Carolyn testified.

Death and the Boundaries of What Is Known

The Palm Beach Post reported that Andriano died May 23, 2023, aged thirty six, in West Palm Beach.

West Palm Beach police described the death as an accidental overdose. The Miami Herald reported that her mother questioned the investigation, while attorney Jack Scarola expressed confidence in its findings.

These accounts distinguish an official determination from a relative’s questions about it. Neither the trial record nor the reporting cited here establishes homicide, retaliation or a connection between her death and the release of Epstein records. Her death should not be turned into proof of claims the evidence does not establish. Her testimony and the court’s treatment of it remain important independently of those claims.

Independent Reporting and Public Memory

Ellie Leonard’s August 29, 2025 essay revisited Carolyn’s story alongside that of another survivor and emphasized the continuing consequences of exploitation and the tendency to discount people whose lives have been disrupted by abuse. It is an interpretive survivor centered essay. Its medical and causal framing should be distinguished from a medical examiner’s determination, and trial details are best checked against the testimony and judicial findings themselves.

Kait Justice’s November 18, 2025 document discussion mentioned Carolyn in connection with the earlier civil litigation and the recruitment of another claimant. Its wider subject was service of legal papers and Epstein related correspondence. Those procedural documents do not by themselves establish the truth of every allegation associated with a named person. For Carolyn’s own account, the trial transcript remains the more direct source.

Verified Document Appearances

Document or identifier	Date and location	What it contributes
EFTA02740220 through EFTA02740223	Filed November 20, 2009; four pages	Epstein’s motion concerning attendance at mediation in C.M.A.’s civil case; names Carolyn and lists her counsel. It is a motion, not a disposition.
United States v. Maxwell, docket 753	December 7, 2021 proceedings; filed August 10, 2022; 264 PDF pages	Direct, cross, redirect and recross examination. Carolyn begins at PDF page 85. Printed transcript numbers and PDF page numbers differ.
United States v. Maxwell, docket 589	Letter dated January 25, 2022; filed January 28, 2022; three pages	Defense correspondence recording her public interview and decision to identify herself.
EFTA02838374 through EFTA02838428	Docket 670, filed June 22, 2022; 55 pages	The government’s sentencing memorandum. Its dedicated Carolyn discussion is on PDF pages 14 through 16, corresponding to printed pages 12 through 14.
United States v. Maxwell, docket 737	June 28, 2022 sentencing; filed July 22, 2022; 101 pages	The judge’s credibility findings, sentencing guideline analysis and sentence.
United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426	September 17, 2024; 26 pages	Second Circuit decision affirming the final judgment.
Maxwell v. United States, No. 25 Civ. 10468, docket 10	August 25, 2026; 67 pages	Opinion denying postconviction relief, including discussion of Carolyn’s testimony and the shipping exhibits on page 64.

Key Takeaways

Carolyn’s importance in the historical record is grounded in her sworn account, corroborating evidence and express judicial findings.
The transcript verifies that she testified under her own first name. The later use of her surname follows her public decision to identify herself.
An accurate account includes the inconsistencies the defense raised and the reasons the court nevertheless credited the central testimony.
The 2009 deposition references prevent a misleading chronology in which Maxwell appeared in her account only after Epstein’s death.
The compensation evidence distinguishes an award, a deduction for earlier payments and the amount actually paid. It does not establish that testimony was purchased.
Her evidence about recruitment explains how the adults’ payment system drew additional girls into abuse without erasing the survivor status of those already being exploited.
The later sentencing and postconviction rulings identify both what the evidence established and what it did not establish.
Her death warrants factual, restrained treatment. It does not diminish the legal record she helped create or justify unsupported speculation.

Sources

December 7, 2021 trial transcript: United States v. Maxwell, docket 753, especially PDF pages 85 through 136, 165 through 179, 186, 204 through 224 and 245 through 254. Public court transcript mirrored by Wikimedia Commons.
June 28, 2022 sentencing transcript: docket 737, especially pages 9 through 14, 37 through 39 and 90 through 97. Public court transcript mirrored by Wikimedia Commons.
Government’s sentencing memorandum, EFTA02838374: docket 670, June 22, 2022, particularly PDF pages 14 through 16 and 22 through 23. The government’s submissions are distinguished from the court’s later rulings.
Epstein’s motion to attend mediation, EFTA02740220: filed November 20, 2009, in related Florida civil litigation.
Defense letter concerning Carolyn’s public identification: January 25, 2022, filed January 28 as docket 589. Public text transcription of the same filing.
Second Circuit opinion affirming Maxwell’s judgment: September 17, 2024, No. 22-1426, official GovInfo copy.
Opinion denying Maxwell’s Section 2255 petition: August 25, 2026, docket 10 in No. 25 Civ. 10468, judicial opinion mirrored by Justia.
Alia Shoaib’s contemporaneous report on Carolyn’s public interview: January 8, 2022, Insider report syndicated by Yahoo.
Holly Baltz’s report of Carolyn’s death: USA TODAY NETWORK and The Palm Beach Post, updated October 18, 2023, syndicated by Yahoo.
Kate Briquelet’s reporting on Carolyn’s death: The Daily Beast, October 14, 2023.
Julie K. Brown’s reporting on Carolyn’s death: Miami Herald, October 17, 2023.
Ellie Leonard’s essay on Carolyn Andriano and Skye Patrick: August 29, 2025. Commentary and reporting, not a judicial or medical finding.
Kait Justice’s discussion of August 2009 legal correspondence: November 18, 2025. Independent document commentary.

PostedOctober 7, 2026