DOJ-OGR-00011339.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page7of8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 13, 2021 Page 7 Finally, the government’s one-sentence 403 argument fails. Gov. Letter at 6 (“[T]he agreement runs the risk of ‘confusing the issue’ and ‘misleading the jury’ by presenting a document from which the jury is asked to infer conclusions that range far beyond the evidence.”). The jury will not be confused or misled by evidence that Kate could not have visited Ms. Maxwell at Kinnerton Street in 1994 because Ms. Maxwell did not purchase that home for another two years. In contrast, jurors wil// be misled if they don’t learn that Kate testified to something that could not have happened. “The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974) (“We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive.”). To that end, Ms. Maxwell has a due process right to present evidence in her defense. U.S. Const. amend. V, VI. Excluding the 1996 Agreement, when Ms. Maxwell did not violate Rule 16 and the government has suffered no prejudice, would infringe this constitutional guarantee. And it would pervert the search for the truth, mislead the jury, and undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. In the words of the Supreme Court, “The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 709. This Court should deny the government’s motion. DOJ-OGR-00011339