DOJ-OGR-00001715.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 88 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 6 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 10, 2020 Page 3 District courts have the inherent authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). Such disclosure is warranted when there is a specific showing that the disclosure is material to the preparation of the defense and reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the case. See id. at 302; United States v. Rueb, No. 00 CR. 91 (RWS), 2001 WL 96177, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2001) (ordering disclosure of government witness list where defendant “ha[d] met his burden to show a particularized need that outweighs the possible dangers of disclosure”). This principle has been applied in sex crimes cases, where the right of the defendant to prepare a defense can outweigh the privacy interests of alleged victims referenced in the indictment and warrant the disclosure of their identities. See United States v. Warme, No. 09CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where “defendant’s ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge is significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim’); see also id. (“Absent knowing the identity of Victim 1, the defendant is precluded from investigating the facts surrounding the crime charged.”). The defense’s narrowly-tailored request, which only seeks the disclosure of the identity of Victims 1-3, and not the government’s entire witness list, is also reasonable in light of the circumstances of this case. And because the protective order prohibits Ms. Maxwell, defense counsel, and others on the defense team from disclosing or disseminating the identity of any alleged victim or potential witness referenced in the discovery materials (Dkt. 36 § 5), the disclosure will have no impact on the privacy interests of Victims 1-3. Nor is there any basis for the government to claim that there is a risk that witnesses will face intimidation or refuse to testify.’ To the contrary, many alleged victims have already chosen to speak on the record in criminal proceedings in the Epstein case and in this case; to file civil suits against Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell and others, and to provide deposition testimony and discovery in those suits; and to give interviews to the press and other television and film productions. Moreover, Victims 1-3 are no longer minors, but are now adults in their late 30s or early 40s, which provides additional assurance that they will be willing to appear for trial. Disclosure is therefore warranted here. ° In determining whether to order pretrial disclosure of the identity of witnesses, some district courts have considered the following factors: (1) Did the offense alleged in the indictment involve a crime of violence? (2) Have the defendants been arrested or convicted for crimes involving violence? (3) Will the evidence in the case largely consist of testimony relating to documents (which by their nature are not easily altered)? (4) Is there a realistic possibility that supplying the witnesses’ names prior to trial will increase the likelihood that the prosecution’s witnesses will not appear at trial, or will be unwilling to testify at trial? (S) Does the indictment allege offenses occurring over an extended period of time, making preparation of the defendants’ defense complex and difficult? (6) Do the defendants have limited funds with which to investigate and prepare their defense? Rueb, 2001 WL 96177, at *7-8 (citation omitted). The Second Circuit, however, has not adopted these factors, nor do they constitute an exhaustive list of factors that the Court may consider in determining whether to disclose the identities of alleged victims. ? Notably, the government did not argue at the bail hearing that Ms. Maxwell posed a danger to the community. (See 7/14/2020 Tr. at 37:15-21). DOJ-OGR-00001715