DOJ-OGR-00010531.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 667 Filed 06/21/22 Page2of2 dies before the final judgment is issued, the Indictment must be dismissed under the rule of abatement. See United States v. Wright 160 F.3d 905, 908 (2d Cir. 1998). Although the Court was required to dismiss the indictment, it conducted a public hearing and provided Epstein’s victims a forum to be heard prior to signing the nolle prosequi. See United States v. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), Dkt. 53. The victim statements in Judge Berman’s proceeding had no impact on the rights of a defendant whose case is abated. Such is not the case here. While it is appropriate for victims to be present pursuant to the CVRA, Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not be an open forum for any alleged victim to be heard. Neither Ms. Ransome nor Ms. Stein are part of the record in this case. We are concerned about the impact statements by alleged victims who were not part of the trial or whose names are not part of the record and who otherwise do not qualify as “crime victims” under the CVRA will have on the Court’s sentencing determination. We request a preview of the manner in which the Court will conduct the sentencing proceeding and advance notice of the individuals who will be permitted to speak. Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding should not be an open forum for anyone to come forward who was not identified as a victim of the charged offenses. Very truly yours, /s/ Bobbi C. Sternheim cc: Government Counsel DOJ-OGR-00010531