Meghan Markle could be called to testify against Prince Andrew in sex abuse case

Meghan Markle could be called in to testify against Prince Andrew, her husband Prince Harry's uncle, in the sex abuse case against him.

Virginia Giuffre has filed a lawsuit against the Duke of York for allegedly having sex with her three times in 2001, when she was still a minor and was being trafficked by convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. David Boies, the lawyer representing her in the case, told Mail Online that Meghan Markle could potentially be deposed during the trial due to three reasons.

Boies said that one of the reasons is that they believe the Duchess of Sussex was someone who could be counted on "to tell the truth." Another reason that she is being considered for the deposition is that she lives in the United States and is subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts. The third reason is that she is a relative of the accused, Prince Andrew, and "hence is in a position to perhaps have seen what he did."

Boies said, "Because of her past association with him, she may very well have important knowledge and will certainly have some knowledge. She checks all three boxes." The attorney stressed that the Duchess is not the only person being considered for the deposition, and that a decision has not been made yet.

He added that his team could depose up to 12 third parties as part of this stage of the trial but they are being careful whom they pick due to time constraints. According to a report in The Daily Beast, the team was also considering deposing Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew's ex-wife, but that would be more difficult than deposing Meghan as the Duchess of York lives in the UK.

Boies noted that though they are considering deposing members of the British royal family, they have no plans to depose Andrew's mother Queen Elizabeth II "out of respect and deference" and because of her age.

District Judge Lewis Kaplan is set to hear arguments from Andrew's legal team that is seeking to dismiss the lawsuit on January 4 next year. The Duke's team has called the case "baseless" adding that "sensationalism and innuendo have prevailed over the truth."