Epstein Secrets

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. Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & DRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. St

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

r purpose; (2) it is relevant to a material issue in dispute; and (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect...." LaFlam, 369 F.3d at 156. There is no proper purpose for the admission of any of the alleged perjury which occurred decades after the charges in Counts 1-4.

under Rule 404(b), which allows such evidence to be admitted for any proper purpose other than to demonstrate criminal propensity. United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir.2004). The rule, however, is not "a carte blanche to admit prejudicial extrinsic act evidence...." United States v. Scott

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. Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & DRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. St

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

under Rule 404(b), which allows such evidence to be admitted for any proper purpose other than to demonstrate criminal propensity. United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir.2004). The rule, however, is not "a carte blanche to admit prejudicial extrinsic act evidence...." United States v. Scott

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

) 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 interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's

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

) 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 interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's

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

) 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 interactions with Minor Victim-3 is admissible to prove the defendant's