Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3 Christian R. Everdell

INE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO

not probative of the charged conspiracies and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully moves (1) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the

he Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully moves (1) to preclude the governmen

6 United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) 6, 7, 8, 9 United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011) 5, 6, II, 13 United States v. Dolney, No. 04-CR-159 (NGG), 2005 WL 2129169 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. I, 2005) 10, 15 United S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE FROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT

URT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE SURPLUSAGE FROM SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue

31-7364 Bobbi C. Stemheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell EFTA00086736 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS 3 ARGUMENT 5 I. All References to Accuser-3 Should Be

plusage from the Indictment ("Motion"). Although Ms. Maxwell is charged with conspiring to cause individuals t

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 3610570 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) 5 United States v. Hsia,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO ACCUSER-3 Christian R. Everdell

INE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED TO

not probative of the charged conspiracies and inadmissible under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully moves (1) to preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the

he Federal Rules of Evidence. In the alternative, Ms. Maxwell respectfully moves (1) to preclude the governmen

6 United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) vacated on other grounds 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) 6, 7, 8, 9 United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011) 5, 6, II, 13 United States v. Dolney, No. 04-CR-159 (NGG), 2005 WL 2129169 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. I, 2005) 10, 15 United S

K UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM

K UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS ME

exual abuse but not a necessary consequence of sexual abuse, jurors have no means to determine whether a Minor Victim is lying or telling the truth GM 7 The defendant also argues that Dr. is not an expert in "the human brain or memory generally." (Def. Mot. 3 at 17). The overnment agrees. But Dr.

m-3's allegations "may reflect conduct 43 EFTA00088845 undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind." (id. at 26-27). B. Applicable Law It is axiomatic that the Government may offer proof of acts included within the indictment. Th

provide detailed and corroborating accounts of the Defendant's alleged role in enticing minors to engage in sex acts."); see also United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (explaining in an interstate stalking case that evidence of earlier abuse that was "similar in nature and severity"

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED 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

ES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED 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. Eve

INE MAXWELL, Defendant. x S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTIONS IN LIMINE Jeffr

ruling on the admissibility for two weeks. 15 Ms. Maxwell reiterates her re, uest to defer III. THIS COUR

No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448 (N.D. III. Oct. 27, 2009) 20, 21 United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) 26 United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011) 26 United States v. Curley, No. SI 08 Cr. 404 (SCR), 2009 WL 10688209 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 15, 2009) 26 United States v.