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

08) 9 United States v. McCallum, 584 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) 5, 6, 11 United States v. Mills, 895 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1990) 12 United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 6, 8, 9, 10 United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) 11 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 4

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

08) 9 United States v. McCallum, 584 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2009) 5, 6, 11 United States v. Mills, 895 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1990) 12 United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 6, 8, 9, 10 United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1996) 11 United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 4

NITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Denver Phone: Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP New York NY Phone: Bobbi C. Stemheim

IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.

oceed under Rule 4O4(b)." United States v. Townsend, No. SI 06 CR. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (citing United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). evidence should also be excluded under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. As argued in our initial Motion, evid