DOJ-OGR-00021735.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page88 of 93 75 flown to New York on Epstein’s private jet, corroborat- ing her testimony on that point. (See Br.79 (citing GX- 662-R at 44)). The same is true regarding Maxwell’s comparison of Counts Two and Four: in Maxwell’s view, the jury rejected nearly all of the evidence of Maxwell’s enticement of Jane to New York for lack of corroboration, and then convicted her based on an un- supported speculative leap about arranging an uni- dentified return flight from New Mexico. That is not plausible, and it certainly is not a “substantially likely” conclusion that can be drawn from an inscruta- ble jury note. For similar reasons, no variance occurred. As dis- cussed above, the proof at trial corresponded to the al- legations in the Indictment, namely, evidence and ar- gument that Maxwell enticed and transported Jane to New York in order to facilitate sexual abuse there. Maxwell was also well aware that the Government’s proof would include conduct in New Mexico. (See A.117, 121-22, 126). Maxwell therefore had “fair and adequate notice” that the conspiracies included con- duct at Epstein’s New Mexico home, which is all that is required. United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608, 622 (2d Cir. 2003). In any event, the Government pro- duced on November 6, 2021—more than three weeks before trial—notes from an interview with Jane de- scribing sexual abuse in New Mexico. That is suffi- cient. See Lebedev, 932 F.3d at 54 (rejecting a prejudice argument in part because “[t]he government disclosed the evidence and exhibits .. . four weeks prior to trial”). DOJ-OGR-00021735