Epstein Secrets

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver CO 80203 Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemhei

rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C

als, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) 12 Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) 14 Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) 8 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 5, 6 Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) 8 United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983)

x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA0008777

tian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C

als, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) 12 Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) 14 Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) 8 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 5, 6 Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) 8 United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983)

14 MS. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, I'd like -- 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd like to respond to this joint 16 defense a

ow, we have to be able to separate out the impermissible 4 inference from the appropriate purpose. There has to be a 5 finding by the Court under Huddleston, and so on and so forth. 6 And unless the plaintiffs can provide you with sufficient 7 information that can then be challenged, we're just spinni

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

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaRam, 369 F.3d 153,156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's in

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

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

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

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

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

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

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

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaP/am, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's