DOJ-OGR-00021756.jpg

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page14 of 35 Cir 1976). The OPR* (SA1-348) contains just such evidence of the negotiations between the Government and Epstein’s counsel which, in corroborating an intent on the part of the parties to draft a co-conspirator clause that provided broader immunity, accords with the plain meaning of the NPA. This is so, notwithstanding that the OPR relies almost exclusively on the distant recollection of government employees whose judgment and professionalism were being questioned with little to no input from Epstein’s attorneys as to who or what they intended or understood the co-conspirator clause of the NPA to cover. See SA166. The Government questions why Epstein would have sought a broader grant of immunity for co-conspirators than for himself. Br.21. But the answer is provided in the OPR. The line prosecutor remembered that defense counsel told her that “Epstein wanted to make sure that he’s the only one who takes the blame for what happened.” SA193. Indeed, the Government believed that Epstein’s conduct was his own “dirty little secret” and did not have any specific evidence against Ms. Maxwell even though they had interviewed Carolyn, the complainant in Count Six, and Annie Farmer, two of the four women who testified at trial (SA193), and had also 4 The Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility investigated and issued a report on the NPA (SA1-348) on issues tangential to the instant appeal, but it provides a skeletal outline of the United States’ negotiation with a multitude of Epstein’s counsel. In particular, the investigation was focused on “whether any of the [Government actors were] influenced by corruption, bias, or other improper motive...to include terms in the NPA that were favorable to Epstein.” SA166. 8 DOJ-OGR-00021756