DOJ-OGR-00001725.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 17, 2020 Page 2 indictment alleges 25-year-old conduct that supposedly occurred on unspecified dates in multiple locations on different continents, and involves numerous alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Moreover, the government’s position is based on the claimed privacy rights of the alleged victims, now all adults, who may well have sued Mr. Epstein and/or Ms. Maxwell in public civil actions or otherwise identified themselves by name in public fora. As discussed below and in our opening letter, under the relevant legal standards, the relief sought can and should be ordered here. With regard to Ms. Maxwell’s conditions of confinement, the government asserts, in essence, that such matters should be left not to this Court, but to the discretion of the BOP. We do not agree. Under the BOP’s original plan, Ms. Maxwell would have been forced to choose between reviewing the voluminous discovery in this case, on the one hand, or taking a shower, eating a meal or exercising, on the other. That would not be consistent with her right to meaningfully review materials and prepare for trial. Indeed, the very filing of the present motion apparently prompted the BOP to make certain of the changes the defense had requested. We respectfully ask the Court to confirm these changes in an order, along with the other relief requested. 1. Disclosure of Alleged Victim Identities The government concedes that this Court has the authority to order it to disclose to defense counsel the identities of the three individuals referenced in the indictment. (Gov’t Resp. at 2). As we understand it, these three individuals are the core of the government’s case against Ms. Maxwell. Yet, according to the government, the defense must make assumptions about their identities until they are finally revealed a few weeks prior to trial. If that occurs, it is very possible that the defense will waste the next several months investigating someone whose name appears in the discovery, but who is not one of the three alleged victims, and whom the government does not even intend to call as a witness at trial. Indeed, the defense has again conducted a high-level review of the second discovery production and, at first glance, there does not appear to be any information that specifically identifies these three witnesses. According to the government, the two productions they have made “constitute the vast majority of initial discovery.” (Ud. at 2). But the defense still does not know for certain who these individuals are and will likely not know until the eve of trial, if the government has their way. That is fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of a fair trial, especially when it is inherently difficult to investigate instances of abuse that allegedly occurred 25 years ago (even when the identity of the alleged victim is known), and when the alleged victims do not have a strong countervailing privacy interest to protect, as discussed below. ! ' The government’s attempt at a compromise solution—providing the birth months and years of the alleged victims—is insufficient. (Gov’t Resp. at 2 n.2). Such partial information only helps confirm the identity of DOJ-OGR-00001725