Epstein Secrets

al elements of the offense"). The Court also denied the Defendant's request to instruct the jury on law governing the age of consent in New Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Florida. First, the Defendant's proposal oversimplified New Mexico's age of consent law. The Court could not accurately instruct the jury on N

, upon review, it is uncertain whether the defendant was convicted of conduct that was the subject of the grand jury's indictment." United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Frank, 156 F.3d 332, 337 (2d Cir. 1998)). In making this determination, the Court first

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

437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded

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

437 (quoting Bagaric, 706 F.2d at 64); see also United States v. Benussi, 216 F. Supp. 2d 299, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), affd sub nom. United States v. Sabnonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) (the "scope of the conspiratorial agreement" is the key to determining whether "an overt act may properly be regarded