DOJ-OGR-00011309.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page6éof7 the Mann Act with the New York state law (including the New York age of consent) as its object, or for violations of § 1591, and conspiracy to commit those offenses. There is accordingly no risk that the jury will convict the defendant for violating an unidentified local sex crimes law for which the Minor Victim was above the age of consent. Asa result, the Government respectfully requests that the Court refrain from giving the second limiting instruction at all during this trial. If the Court nevertheless decides to give the second limiting instruction, the Government proposes the following revision to give the jury an understanding both of what is and what is not illegal sexual activity: I anticipate that you will hear testimony from the next witness about sexual conduct that she says she had with Mr. Epstein in [insert relevant jurisdiction, e.g. New Mexico]. I instruct you that if and when beeause the witness was over the age of consent in [insert relevant jurisdiction, e.g. New Mexico] at the relevant time period, the sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not itself “illegal sexual activity” as the Government has charged in the Indictment. [The age of consent in that jurisdiction is [insert relevant age of consent or analysis thereof]]._ However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, including the defendant’s intent for that witness to engage in illegal sexual activity in New York as charged in the Indictment, you may consider it. Even when the witness was over the age of consent in [insert relevant jurisdiction, e.g., New Mexico], at the relevant time period, you may conclude that the witness was below the age of consent in New York, which is 17 years old. [For witnesses relevant to the sex trafficking counts: Further, the sexual conduct may be considered in determining whether the defendant intended the witness to engage in a “commercial sex act” before reaching the age of 18, and for which the age of consent in [insert relevant jurisdiction] is irrelevant.] However, you may not consider this testimony regarding sexual activity that took place above the age of consent with respect to the relevant statute as I have just described it as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein’s nor Ms. Maxwell’s character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the Indictment. The proposed revision provides the jury with information that matches the expected testimony, provides the jury with sufficient context about the question before it to avoid confusion about how it can and cannot consider the sexual activity, avoids an inaccurate statement of state 6 DOJ-OGR-00011309