DOJ-OGR-00001727.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 42 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4of5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 17, 2020 Page 4 in stark contrast to the 25-year-old conduct alleged in this case. Warme, 2009 WL 427111, at *1-2. The district court recognized “the sensitive nature of the charges and the difficulties facing rape victims,” but found that “the defendant’s ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge [would be] significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim.” Jd. at *2. The district court found that disclosure was appropriate because, as in this case (1) the defendant was seeking disclosure of the identity of an alleged victim who was the basis for a specific crime charged in the indictment, and not just a government witness; (ii) the indictment did not state “the exact dates” of the alleged abuse or the prior encounters between the defendant and the alleged victim; and (iii) the government did not articulate any basis to conclude that the alleged victim would be subject to intimidation or would refuse to appear at trial as a result of the disclosure. /d. For the same reasons articulated in Warme, this Court should order the government to disclose immediately the identities of three alleged victims referenced in the indictment, subject to the terms of the protective order.” 2. Ms. Maxwell’s Conditions of Confinement and Access to Discovery The government asserts that Ms. Maxwell’s conditions of confinement should be left to the discretion of the BOP. (Gov’t Resp. at 4). But the BOP cannot be the sole arbiter on these issues if the conditions of Ms. Maxwell’s confinement impact her right to a fair trial and to meaningfully prepare her defense. Indeed, under the BOP’s original plan, Ms. Maxwell would have been forced to choose between taking a shower and reviewing the voluminous discovery in this case. It is only because the defense filed its motion that the BOP modified its original plan and gave Ms. Maxwell increased access to the discovery two days later. We now understand, and the government has confirmed, that Ms. Maxwell can review discovery from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. every day of the week. (/d. at 5). We respectfully ask the Court to confirm these changes in an order to the BOP. However, the defense continues to believe that Ms. Maxwell is being subjected to uniquely onerous conditions of confinement because of the death of Mr. Epstein in BOP custody. For example, Ms. Maxwell continues to be surveilled 24 hours a day by security cameras and is ° The government attempts to distinguish Warme by asserting that, unlike Warme, the indictment in this case “describes relevant time periods and events, including referring to the defendant’s conversations with victims, interactions with victims, and specific relevant locations.” (Gov’t Resp. at 3). That is incorrect. In fact, the indictment in Warme was far more specific as to the dates of the relevant events, alleging that the rape took place “sometime in and around October of 2006.” Warme, 2009 WL 427111, at *2. By contrast, the indictment in this case alleges vague instances of “grooming” that supposedly took place over the course of a year (in the case of Victim 2), two years (in the case of Victim 3), or even four years (in the case of Victim 1). Those are hardly “exact dates.” The criminal complaint in Warme also alleged specific interactions between the defendant and the alleged victim; namely, that they “had met and exchanged phone numbers perhaps as long as 10 months prior to the alleged rape.” Jd. Nevertheless, the district court held that the defendant’s right to prepare his defense required disclosure of the identity of the alleged victim and outweighed any privacy interest that the victim might have. Jd. DOJ-OGR-00001727