Epstein Secrets

CT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GIIISLAINE MAXWE 'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON. M R AN & FOREMAN P.C. Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim

AINE MAXWE 'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON. M R AN & FOREMAN P.C

Cir. 2002) 21 United States v. Parse, 789 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2015) 21 United States v. RMI Co., 599 F.2d 1183 (3d Cir. 1979) 51 United States v. Sampson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 151 (D. Mass. 2011) United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) passim 53 United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273

well's challenge to the credibility of her accusers' memories or the expert testimony of Dr. Loftus.I2 Several decisions support this conclusion. In Sampson v. United States, for example, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to order a new penalty- phase hearing in a death penalty cas

EMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR A SEVERANCE OF AND SEPARATE TRIAL ON COUNTS FIVE AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell

AND SIX OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C

ause "substantial prejudice." United States v. Ramos, No. 06 Cr. 172 (LTS), 2009 WL 1619912, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 5, 2009) (citing United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004)). The prejudice must be "sufficiently severe to outweigh the judicial economy that would be realized by avoiding

United States v. United States v. United States v. United States v. Randazzo, 80 F.3d 623 (1st Cir. 1996) Rivera, 546 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2008) Sampson, 385 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2004) Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir.1988) Walker, 142 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1998) Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) Winchest

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00100086 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287,307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude,

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00077751 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00039566 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. 123 EFTA

jury is best equipped to determine the meaning that a defendant 119 EFTA00095211 assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).48 An exception arises when language in a question is "fundamentally ambiguous," that is "when it is not a phrase

o prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, 139 EFTA00095231 "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "

o use them for purposes of sexual massages? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. Can yo

ury is best equipped 119 EFTA00103144 to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question." Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47 A narrow exception arises when language in a question is so "fundamentally ambiguous" that a Court can conclude

14(a). "[I]n order to prevail" on a Rule 14 motion, "the defendant must show not simply some prejudice but substantial prejudice." United States v. Sampson, 385 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Werner, 620 F.2d at 928). The defendant carries this "heavy burden" because Rule 8(a) already strikes a "