DOJ-OGR-00014559.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 LCKCmax7 Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 257 2993 preclude any arguments to the jury that the defendant was a substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. That's the exact argument that Ms. Menninger advanced to the jury in closing, which the Court precluded. oD THE COURT: Not with respect to motivation for the witness's testimony. There is a reason I gave —- for both sides, sort of you've both now done this, precisely the line that which is basically to reargue crafted and ruled on in my pretrial rulings. I have maintained those lines throughout trial with a couple of exceptions they made the argument that of door opening and the like, but where there was a little bit I don't have in mind, yes, Epstein's death is a factor in the motivation for the changing the s was -- to the extent that arguments go to the credibility of witnesses, that's where I drew th tories, which is what I said lin MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I was referring to the argument early in Ms. Menninger's mean an argument tha summation about I took to t the government was substituting Ms. Maxwell for Mr. Epstein. Again, we want to review the transcript, but that's how we heard it. There were also arguments throughout summation about the victims doing that, which I understand the Court has ruled on that there is a difference between those two, but we think where that crosses the line is an argument where the government is doing that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014559