DOJ-OGR-00011285.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 709 _ Filed 07/12/22 Page3of5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 15, 2021 Page 3 page 3524-013, page 3 of 8, on May 14, 2021, after being interviewed multiple times, the witness said: EPSTEIN noted once that when he and Maxwell dated that MAXWELL would bring more girls for threesomes, saying they were sexual relationships. did not recall when or where EPSTEIN said this to her. EPSTEIN told that MAXWELL brought him girls. The witness continued discussing her “impressions” of the conversation. Nothing in her “impressions” about this conversation relate to Epstein using the discussion to further any conspiracy. The witness does not indicate that any of the “girls” were underage. The witness further advised that during the time she worked for Epstein “she did not get the sense that he and MAXWELL were still in a romantic relationship.” /d. Accordingly, the context of the statement reflects that anything said by Epstein was “idle chatter” and not something in furtherance of any conspiracy. The Court should also exclude this statement under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because the probative value of the statement is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact to Ms. Maxwell. Epstein is dead and not subject to cross examination. It is not clear by the proffer what Ms. Maxwell “used to do.” The witness could speculate that Epstein meant solicit underage females but the evidence at trial will establish that Ms. Maxwell hired a number of employees for Epstein prior to 2004. The statement is overly prejudicial especially when viewed in the context of the other evidence that the government claims it will produce at trial, i.e., direct statements from accusers that Ms. Maxwell recruited them. This post-hoc statement attributed to Epstein by a cooperating witness (17 years later) will be used by the government to argue that Epstein admitted that Ms. Maxwell was a co-conspirator. Given the weak foundation for the alleged statement the Court should exclude it. At a minimum, the Court should review the circumstances DOJ-OGR-00011285