DOJ-OGR-00010410.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document657_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 44of 45 would have credited this vague testimony about an unnamed individual over the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of Juan Alessi and an email chain between the Defendant and Markham that indicates that the Defendant worked closely with Markham to create the manual and provided specific content, such as the checklists, to be included. See GX- 424. Finally, the Defendant refers to her prior briefing in which she alleged substantial prejudice because of the absence of other deceased potential witnesses, including Epstein, Epstein’s mother, Jane’s talent agent Michael Casey, and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. See Dkt. No. 138 at 8-11. The Court has previously considered and rejected the Defendant’s claim of prejudice based on these absent witnesses. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317. The Defendant points to no development at trial that she believes should alter the Court’s conclusion, nor is the Court aware of any such reason for reconsideration. The Defendant’s reply brief devotes just a single sentence to her claim of pre-indictment delay and does not address any of the defects identified by the Government. She has not satisfied either element required for a claim of pre-indictment delay, as she has not demonstrated that the Government improperly delayed prosecution nor that she suffered actual and substantial prejudice from such delay. The Court therefore denies her motion to vacate her convictions on this basis. V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Defendant’s Rule 29 motion because the jury’s guilty verdicts were supported by the witness testimony and documentary evidence presented at trial. The Court denies the Defendant’s motion based on constructive amendment or variance because the jury instructions, the Government’s evidence at trial, and summation all 44 DOJ-OGR-00010410