Epstein Secrets

torney's Office. Also consistent with the October 7, 2020 letter, we have taken the following steps to obtain additional agency files to review for Brady, Giglio, and Jencks Act material. First, we have confirmed with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Georgia that it does not possess any substantive witn

lly relevant to our case. We are in the process of reviewing that subset of emails. Third, we are still in the process of loading scans of the full USAO-SDFL file into Relativity so that our team can conduct a full review of that file. Due to technical issues with the vendor who scanned the files in Flori

d Order a Bill of Particulars as to Counts Five and Six. 22 VII. The Court Should Order the Government to Produce Accuser-4's Prior Statements as Brady Material 24 VIII. Ms. Maxwell Incorporates All of the Arguments Raised in Her Initial Pretrial Motions and Reasserts Them as to the S2 Indictment

st levied her accusations more than a decade ago. The Palm Beach FBI and the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") interviewed Accuser-4 in or around 2007 during their three- year investigation of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse (the "Florida Investigation"). And

Jeopardy Clause's Protection Against Duplicative Punishments. 11 III. The Government Should Immediately Produce Accuser-4's Prior Statements as Brady Material. 14 IV. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Other Requested Relief. 16 CONCLUSION 17 i EFTA00104412 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

secutorial overreach. It is no mystery what happened here. The Palm Beach FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL") conducted a thorough investigation of Jeffrey Epstein from 2006-2008 (the "Florida Investigation"), but decided not to prosecute him or his "pote

e attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would

.' As a fourth and final illustration, the victims requested information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) was "conflicted out" of considering issues relating to the Epstein matter, as well as any information that developed about that conflict after the

he Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials. In particular, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and will promptly produce any exculpatory material of which it becomes aware. The Government's Rul

ers of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office, the U.S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), and the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office") conducted a separate investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for hi

he Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials. In particular, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and will promptly produce any exculpatory material of which it becomes aware. The Government's Rul

ers of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office, the U.S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), and the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office") conducted a separate investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for hi

he Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials. In particular, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and will promptly produce any exculpatory material of which it becomes aware. The Government's Rul

ers of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office, the U.S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), and the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office") conducted a separate investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for hi

he Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials. In particular, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and will promptly produce any exculpatory material of which it becomes aware. The Government's Rul

ers of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office, the U.S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), and the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office") conducted a separate investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for hi

he Prosecution Team Files for any additional discoverable or exculpatory materials. In particular, the Government is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and will promptly produce any exculpatory material of which it becomes aware. The Government's Rul

ers of the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach State's Attorney's Office, the U.S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO-SDFL"), and the FBI's Palm Beach Resident Agency (the "FBI Florida Office") conducted a separate investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein for hi

e attorneys representing criminals, the Office would promptly turn over all information in its possession that was helpful to these criminals under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and related decisions. Victims' counsel asked the Office to extend to the victims the same assistance that it would

d.6 As a fourth and final illustration, the victims requested information about why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) was "conflicted out" of considering issues relating to the Epstein matter, as well as any information that developed about that conflict after the