DOJ-OGR-00011335.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 _ Filed 07/12/22 Page3of8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 13, 2021 Page 3 First, Ms. Maxwell did not contravene Rule 16. As a matter of reciprocal discovery, that Rule requires the defense to disclose an item to the government if “the defendant intends to use the item in the defendant’s case-in-chief at trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)(ii). The relevance of the 1996 Agreement was not apparent until after Kate testified, under oath, to an impossibility—that she visited Kinnerton Street years before Ms. Maxwell bought it. The 1996 Agreement is classic evidence of impeachment by contradiction, which, “unlike affirmative evidence presented to support her defense, [a defendant] may not even know she may need to use . . . until after she hears the direct testimony of the witness.” United States v. Hsia, No. CRIM. 98-0057 (PLF), 2000 WL 195067, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2000). Contrary to the government’s representation, Kate’s FBI 302 materials did not show what she would say on the stand about where Ms. Maxwell’s home was in 1994. Gov. Letter at 5. To the contrary, before her trial testimony last week, Kate had told the government two different stories. The first was that Ms. Maxwell lived in the Kensington neighborhood of London: [Kate] thought that there were approximately two assaults by EPSTEIN before she started traveling with he and MAXWELL, but was unsure about the exact number. This occurred at MAXWELL’s residence in Kensington. 3513-009 at 3 (FBI 302). e The government first endorsed and disclosed a new witness and new exhibits on December 9, the night before calling the witness to the stand on the last day of the government’s case. e The government belatedly disclosed expert opinion testimony from Examiner Flatley. e All the material the government disclosed after November 30, including letters, PayPal record, and bank records. DOJ-OGR-00011335