DOJ-OGR-00001806.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 66 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 7 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan October 23, 2020 Page 2 Indictment. Although the Government represented to this Court during the detention hearing that “the strength of the Government’s evidence” provided a strong incentive for Ms. Maxwell to flee, it has failed to produce any of the corroborating documentation that they claimed to have at the initial hearing in this case. And, to the contrary, the dearth of evidence reinforces why Ms. Maxwell has never intended to flee. She steadfastly maintains her innocence and vehemently denies the charges against her, as she has in prior civil lawsuits since the allegations against her first surfaced. Furthermore, the Government’s production of discovery to Ms. Maxwell in the MDC has been deficient and inadequate. For example, Ms. Maxwell only received the Government’s October 2, 2020 production yesterday afternoon, almost three weeks after the production date, and she still cannot read all of the documents in the government’s prior productions. Defense counsel have discussed these issues at length with the Government, and despite the Government’s assurances that it has spoken to the BOP and that the problems have been or will be corrected, the problems persist. The defense has done what it can to alert the Government to these issues so that they can be remedied, including three letters, three conference calls, numerous emails, and countless hours of time and effort that should have been spent on preparing the defense. It should not be Ms. Maxwell’s responsibility to intercede with the Government and the BOP to ensure that the discovery is produced on time and in a readable format. The Government created these problems by insisting that Ms. Maxwell be detained before trial, and it is up to the Government to properly discharge its discovery obligations, which they have not done. The Government’s failure to produce relevant discovery in a timely manner, and in a format that Ms. Maxwell can effectively review, is prejudicing her ability to investigate, prepare substantive motions, and defend against these charges. Given that these allegations are decades old and were investigated over many years by the Government prior to indictment, it should not have been difficult for the Government to produce the relevant discovery by the appropriate deadlines. Its October 7, 2020 letter is simply the harbinger of future delay, obfuscation, and impairment of Ms. Maxwell’s ability to defend herself. Background Regarding the Lack of Substantive Disclosure by the Government Regarding Counts One Through Four? The “speaking” indictment in this case is remarkable because it fails to identify an accuser, a specific date that Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed a crime, or when anything in furtherance of any alleged conspiracy occurred. The only dates contained in the indictment are the years 1994-1997. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7 provides that “[t]he indictment ... shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). A criminal defendant is entitled to an indictment that alleges the essential elements of the charge against him. See Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 232 5 Similar discovery problems exist regarding Counts Five and Six. Evidence of Ms. Maxwell’s non-involvement with other Epstein accusers after 1997 would, in fact, undercut the Government’s perjury theory because the materiality of any statements must be evaluated in the context of the allegations made in the civil proceeding, i.e., post1997. DOJ-OGR-00001806