DOJ-OGR-00010530.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 667 _ Filed 06/21/22 Pagelof2 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIA\ 212-243-1100 * Main 225 Broadway, Suite 715 917-912-9698 ° Cell New York, NY 10007 888-587-4737 ° Fax besternhein@mac.com June 17, 2022 Honorable Alison J. Nathan Sitting By Designation United States District Court 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: Counsel for Ms. Maxwell write to inform the Court that we do not request sealing or redaction of the letter submitted by Robert Y. Lewis, Esq., counsel to Sarah Ransome and Elizabeth Stein. However, Mr. Lewis’s letter raises an issue that we believe the Court must resolve prior to the sentencing hearing; namely, who may submit victim impact statements to the Court or address the Court at sentencing under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”). Under the CVRA, a “crime victim” has, among other things, “the right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). The CVRA defines a “crime victim” as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A) (emphasis added). The concept of “direct and proximate harm,” as used in the CVRA, is not limitless and only covers victims of the conduct underlying the offenses of conviction. See United States v. Daly, No. 3:11-cr-121 (AWT), 2012 WL 315409, at *5-*6 (D. Conn. Feb. 1, 2012) (“[T]he determination as to whether person has the rights of a ‘crime victim’ for purposes the CVRA is made with reference to the conduct underlying the charged offense.) (emphasis added). The conduct underlying the offenses charged against Ms. Maxwell ended “in or about 2004.” To our understanding, Ms. Ransome alleges that she was a victim of Epstein and Ms. Maxwell from approximately October 2006 to April 2007, a full two years after the conduct in this case ended. She therefore does not qualify as a “crime victim” under the CVRA. We do not know when Ms. Stein alleges that she was a victim, but she would also not qualify as a “crime victim” if the conduct she alleges post-dates 2004 or she was not a minor. According to uncorroborated press reports Ms. Stein claims to have met Maxwell in 1994 when Ms. Stein was 21 years old and not a minor. In his letter to the Court, dated June 14, 2022. Mr. Lewis requests that Ms. Ransome and Ms. Stein be given an opportunity to speak at Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing proceeding and references that Ms. Ransome spoke at the hearing conducted by Judge Berman following Epstein’s death. But the sentencing proceeding to be held on June 28 is far different from the hearing conducted by Judge Berman. Following Epstein’s death, the government moved for a nolle prosequi to dispose of the case pursuant to Second Circuit law holding that if a defendant DOJ-OGR-00010530