DOJ-OGR-00001089.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a fan) = be N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page148 of 200 85 k7e2MaxC kjc significant argument by the defense and it is a relevant consideration, but the court does not give it controlling weight here. ar To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution, Ms. Maxwell herself may have expected to avoid prosecution. After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The case was therefore distinguishable from United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier. Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact with the government means little if that was an effort to stave (e) indictment and she did not provide the government with her whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may face such serious charges herself may not have set in until after she was actually indicted. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00001089