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

14 CONCLUSION 16 i EFTA00074480 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) 12 Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) 14 Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) 8 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 5, 6 Salinas v

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

14 CONCLUSION 16 i EFTA00087775 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) 12 Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) 14 Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (1957) 8 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) 5, 6 Salinas v

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

proposed definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" as "flatly inconsistent with the definition of sexual abuse contained in th[at] very dictionary." Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017). Again, the Government is confident that the Court will properly instruct the jury regarding the elements of the crime

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

Dow Phanns., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) passim Dougherty v. County of Sttffolk,No. CV 13-6493 (AKT), 2018 WL 1902336 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2018) 41 Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) 30 Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 41 Lou v. United States, 218 F.2d 675 (