DOJ-OGR-00001807.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 66 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 7 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan October 23, 2020 Page 3 (1999); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974) (“[A]n indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.”); Fed.R.Crim.P.7(c). An indictment that fails to allege the essential elements of the crime charged offends both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 760-61 (1962). Ms. Maxwell recognizes that in most cases the bar for sufficiency of an indictment is very low. It is also true that courts find, in certain cases, that the discovery provided in connection with the matter may cure various pleading deficiencies. See, e.g., United States v. Jain, No. 19-CR-59 (PKC), 2019 WL 6888635, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2019) (When supplemented by discovery material, no additional information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise, so a bill of particulars is unwarranted...”.); United States v. Rodriguez, No. 99 CR. 367 (DLC), 1999 WL 820558, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 1999) (“[T]he indictment, particularly when coupled with the discovery already provided to the defendant, allows [him] both to prepare his defense and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial. It also gives him sufficient protection from a prosecution that would violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause.”). This, however, is not those cases. Neither the indictment nor the discovery inform Ms. Maxwell about critical information necessary to prepare her defense. For example, the discovery provides no information about exactly when and where the alleged instances of sexual abuse took place. Because there are no dates provided, other than a three-year period beginning 26 years in the past, Ms. Maxwell cannot properly investigate where she and other witnesses were when the alleged crime supposedly occurred. And because the crimes alleged in Counts One through Four are based largely on vaguely stated, non-criminal acts of so-called “grooming” (talking to or being nice to someone, or taking them to a movie), it is impossible to know what act or acts she needs to defend against at trial. The Discovery Provided to Date Contains No Corroborating Information and Omits Exculpatory Evidence At this point, roughly two months after the Government promised to produce the “core” of their evidence against Ms. Maxwell, their case appears to rest almost exclusively on claims of three unidentified accusers, as to which they have not provided any detail about the dates or exact locations of the alleged encounters, or the specific acts taken by Ms. Maxwell. Nor has this information been provided in the discovery. There is no identified witness who claims Ms. Maxwell did any of the things alleged in the indictment. Apart from the bare allegations in the indictment, there are no statements from any witness claiming Ms. Maxwell did anything and there has been almost nothing in the discovery for Ms. Maxwell to investigate. Importantly, the Government has not produced any of the potentially exculpatory information necessary to conduct an adequate defense investigation. We know, for example that dozens of women accused Jeffrey Epstein of misconduct and that the Government interviewed these women in connection with the Florida proceedings. None of these women implicated Ms. Maxwell in any wrongdoing, nor was Ms. Maxwell accused or involved in the Florida DOJ-OGR-00001807