Epstein Secrets

Accuser-3's testimony. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The government and the defense agree on at least this much about Accuser-3: I. She was not a minor in the United Kingdom when she alleges that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein in 1994-1995; 2. She cannot establish that Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein ever cau

als, 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, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) 8 United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983)

Accuser-3's testimony. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The government and the defense agree on at least this much about Accuser-3: I. She was not a minor in the United Kingdom when she alleges that she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein in 1994-1995; 2. She cannot establish that Ms. Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein ever cau

als, 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, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) 8 United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1983)

endant takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as "abuse" because, she asserts, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim- 3 will testify to her subjective

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaRam, 369 F.3d 153,156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's in

endant takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as "abuse" because, she asserts, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim- 3 will testify to her subjective

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

endant takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as "abuse" because, she asserts, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim- 3 will testify to her subjective

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the July, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

motion takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as "abuse" because, the assert, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim-3 subjectively experienced these

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's

endant takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as "abuse" because, she asserts, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim- 3 will testify to her subjective

at is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect; and (iv) is admitted with a limiting instruction to the jury, if requested. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 691- 92 (1988); United States v. LaP/am, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). Here, evidence regarding the defendant's