DOJ-OGR-00020253.jpg

Case 21-58, Document 58-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page19 of 25 35. Judge Nathan’s reliance on the Government’s proffers was entirely proper, particularly on the facts of this case. This is not a case where the Government “simply stat[ed] in general and conclusory terms what it hoped to prove,” or where the Government proffered the statements of a single witness with a history of perjury. Lafontaine, 210 F.3d at 131. The Indictment—which reflects far more than just a proffer but instead the probable cause determination of the grand jury after receiving evidence—sets forth in detail the expected testimony of three victim-witnesses, describing specific actions Maxwell took with respect to each. (Ind. {| 7(a)-(c)). And as the Government explained, each victim-witness’s testimony is corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses and by documentary evidence. (Ex. A at 5; Ex. F at 9-12). Judge Nathan was entitled to rely on these proffers in assessing the strength of the evidence. 36. Maxwell’s remaining arguments repeat contentions made below but do not meaningfully engage with Judge Nathan’s considered rejection of them. Maxwell disputes that she was hiding from law enforcement before her arrest (Br. 23-24), but Judge Nathan was dubious of that assertion and found that even assuming Maxwell was hiding from the media, not the Government, her evasive actions demonstrated her “extraordinary capacity to evade detection.” (Ex. D at 87). Maxwell asserts in conclusory fashion that her proposed bail package alleviates any 19 DOJ-OGR-00020253