DOJ-OGR-00011437.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page14of 25 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 14 This is clear from the language of the Rule. “The claim” to which subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) refer is the “disputed claim” referenced in subsection (a). When the “disputed claim” is different from “the claim” compromised, the Rule’s prohibitions do not apply. Vulcan Hart Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 718 F.2d 269, 277 (8th Cir. 1983) (“Rule 408 excludes evidence of settlement offers only if such evidence is offered to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim under negotiation.” (emphasis added)). Here, the “disputed claim” is government’s claim that Ms. Maxwell trafficked the accusers, facilitated their abuse, and conspired to do the same. “The claim” each accuser compromised with the EVCP was “the claim” that they were entitled to money for the abuse perpetrated by Mr. Epstein. Because Ms. Maxwell will use the materials for a “purpose other than to prove or disprove the validity of the claims that the offers were meant to settle,” Trebor Sportswear, 865 F.2d at 510, Rule 408 does not apply. Second, even if Rule 408 did apply, it would not bar admission of the evidence because evidence of compromise is admissible to prove a witness’s bias and prejudice, a traditional object of cross-examination. Fed. R. Evid. 408(b). Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 680 (defendants have a constitutional right to engage in “cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part of the witness, and thereby ‘to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors... 299 could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’” (quoting Davis, 415 U.S. at 318)). There is no dispute that the accusers’ settlement of their claims against Mr. Epstein for vast sums of money is relevant to their bias and motive in both cooperating with the government to secure prosecutorial credit, a factor in the EVCF’s protocol, and testifying against Ms. Maxwell. DOJ-OGR-00011437