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

and at least one timely overt act is committed in furtherance of the conspiracy within the applicable statute of limitations. See United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Grunwald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-97 (1957)); United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170, 174-75

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

and at least one timely overt act is committed in furtherance of the conspiracy within the applicable statute of limitations. See United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 614 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 396-97 (1957)); United States v. Rutkoske, 506 F.3d 170, 174-75

native, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from Representing that Accuser-3 Was a "Minor," or that She Was "Sexually Abused" by Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction 14 CONCLUSION 16 i EFTA00074480 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Daubert v. Merre

was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) for an appropriate limiting instruction concerning Accuser-3's testimony. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The government and the defense agree on at

LP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

es v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983) 6, 7, 8 United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), of 'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 8 United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2000) 6 United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992)

s. Maxwell's alleged enticement and/or transportation of Accuser-1. The indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell engaged in group sexual encounters with Jeffrey Epstein and Accuser-1 and that, on at least one occasion, Ms. Maxwell enticed or caused Accuser-1 to travel from Florida to New York for the purpose of enga

least one occasion, Ms. Maxwell enticed or caused Accuser-1 to travel from Florida to New York for the purpose of engaging in such encounters with Epstein. But to do so, it must rely on the accusations of a single individual regarding I This individual is described in the indictment as Minor Victim-3.

Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

7) 8 Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) 7 United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 7 United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011) 10 United States v. Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL

native, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from Representing that Accuser-3 Was a "Minor," or that She Was "Sexually Abused" by Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction 14 CONCLUSION 16 i EFTA00087775 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Daubert v. Merre

was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) for an appropriate limiting instruction concerning Accuser-3's testimony. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The government and the defense agree on at

ER-3 Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN &

es v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983) 6, 7, 8 United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), of 'd sub nom. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 8 United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2000) 6 United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1992)

tends represent "direct evidence" of a conspiracy (to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse minor females or to entice, transport or traffic them for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual pleasure) that Resp. at 36. 2 The proffered evidence is found at GX 401-404, 409-410 and 413 7 EFTA00090733 The government contends that

government clearly intends to rely on how open the alleged abuse was, the relevance of evidence that even the people who claim they were abused by Epstein during the same time frame but without any knowledge or participation by Ms. Maxwell becomes highly relevant to rebut such testimony. 12 EFTA00090

ELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON MORGAN &

-NGG-VMS, 2019 WL 2212639 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 20, 23 Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010) 20, 21, 22 Rigas, 490 F.3d 208 (2d. Cir. 2007) 14 Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) 14 Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 22, 2010) 20, Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247