Epstein Secrets

Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than , and therefore that her answer was false. And even if the d

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant testified t

sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? A. No. not that I recall. q

ed in Count Six. Id. ¶ 23. If the Court severs the Indictment into two trials, it will require Minor Victim-2 to testify about her abuse twice. Cf. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987) (recognizing that joint trials of multiple defendants avoid "requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience

e, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. 1 ARGUMENT I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"

in illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporti

NARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant

f America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00099941 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case. 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New Yolk 4 1. The Text of the Agreement

14 Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) 115, 116,118 Ratzlal.v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) Richardson v. Marsh, 165 116 481 U.S. 200 (1987) 212 Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991) 168, 172 Rochin, 342 U.S., 72 S. Ct. 205 153 Rosencr

Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than Giuffre, and therefore that her answer was false. And even i

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

e following colloquy occurred: Er. When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

ed in Count Six. Id. ¶ 23. If the Court severs the Indictment into two trials, it will require Minor Victim-2 to testify about her abuse twice. Cf. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987) (recognizing that joint trials of multiple defendants avoid "requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience

Order On or about April 9, 2019, the Government advised Judge Netbum, who had not yet ruled on the Government's other application in Jane Doe 43 v. Epstein, et at, 17 Civ. 0616 (JGK) (SN), of Chief Judge McMahon's decision via a pane and sealed letter. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. I). Subsequently, on April 16, 2

rational juror, after hearing the evidence, could find that the question called for the names of minors that the defendant interacted with at any of Jeffrey Epstein's properties, that the defendant answered that she was aware of no such minors other than Giuffre, and therefore that her answer was false. And even i

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

e following colloquy occurred: Er. When you and Mr. Epstein were engaged in sexual activity that included th

ed in Count Six. Id. ¶ 23. If the Court severs the Indictment into two trials, it will require Minor Victim-2 to testify about her abuse twice. Cf. Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987) (recognizing that joint trials of multiple defendants avoid "requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience

me, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.1 ARGUMENT I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement ("NPA"

illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2. Count Three charges the defendant with conspiring with Epstein and others to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Four charges the defendant with transporti

NARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant

f America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00095067 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement

439 U.S. 128 (1978) 82, 83 Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) 112 vii EFTA00095074 Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) 83 Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) 142 Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592 (2d Cir. 1991) 114, 116 Rochin, 342 U.S., 72 S. Ct. 205 105 Rosencrans v. Uni

2016 meeting (the "Daily News Article" or the "Article") .36 The Article stated, among other things, that defense attorneys representing victims of Epstein and the defendant "urged" the USAO-SDNY to "open an investigation of the duo" during that meeting. Citing two anonymous sources, the Article descri

underage girls that the defendant met and brought to Epstein. Specifically: Q. Can you list for me all the girls that you have met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein's house that were under the age of 18? MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation. A. I could only recall my family members that were there a

out whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired "people across the board" to "work for Jeffrey." (Id. at 245:7-18). Giuffre's counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein's home, and the defendant te

Q. Were you ever involved in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house that included the use of sex

ed in Count Six. Id. ¶ 23. If the Court severs the Indictment into two trials, it will require Minor Victim-2 to testify about her abuse twice. See Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 210 (1987) (recognizing that joint trials of multiple defendants avoid "requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience