Epstein Secrets

ng those statements are included in this production and are marked with control number USAO 002273. The Government recognizes its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Pursuant to those obligations, we are disclosing the information below. This disclosure should no

Specifically, the Government discloses the following: • The victim identified in the Indictment as "Victim-1" received a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of Florida ("SDFL") in or about 2008. However, Victim-1 was never interviewed by law enforcement, including the West Palm Beach Police Department, Federal Bur

charges are sufficiently specific. • Maxwell moves to compel the Government to produce the statements of "Minor-Victim 4" in the S2 indictment as Brady material. The Court concludes that the current disclosure schedule gives Maxwell sufficient time to make effective use of any such statements and t

first set of pretrial motions, the Court held that the non-prosecution agreement ("NPA") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida did not bar the charges against Maxwell in the S1 superseding indictment. See United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 1518675, at *2

us that you already have our May 19 and May 27 communications to the Deputy Attorney General, as well as our prior written submissions to CEOS and to the Southern District of Florida. In light of the significant volume of our prior submissions and to facilitate your review, we have drafted four supplemental submissions that will

s it has identified. Because the information provided by these women goes directly to the question of Mr. Epstein’s guilt or innocence, it is classic Brady information. We understand that the U.S. Attorney might not want to disclose impeachment information about their witnesses prior to a charge or durin

for the NPA from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and communicated with attorneys in other districts. Any involvement of attorneys outside the Southern District of Florida appears to have been minimal. Maxwell has already received access to an unusually large amount of information 5 EFTA00020265 --- PAGE BREAK ---

nfer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require

for the NPA from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and communicated with attorneys in other districts. Any involvement of attorneys outside the Southern District of Florida appears to have been minimal. Maxwell has already received access to an unusually large amount of information 5 EFTA00022095 --- PAGE BREAK ---

nfer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require

ricts. Two provisions of the NPA refer specifically to prosecution in the Southern District of Florida. The first states that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida will defer "prosecution in this District" if Epstein complies with the agreement. Dkt. No. 142-1 at 2. The second states that no prosecution "will

nfer on an overall schedule for all remaining pretrial disclosures. A. The Court accepts the Government's representations that it has disclosed all Brady and Giglio Material The Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) require