DOJ-OGR-00002434.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document136 Filed 02/04/21 Page 25 of 27 (D.D.C. 2011) (granting pretrial motion to dismiss indictment based on insufficient evidence where the only relevant evidence was internet chat transcript). B. Counts 5 and 6 Should Be Dismissed None of the questions that elicited the allegedly perjurious testimony were material to the proceeding in which the testimony was given. As Judge Preska ruled, the questions were “far afield from the sex trafficking and sexual abuse allegations that were central to the dispute in Giuffre v. Maxwell.” Ex. 1 at 7. Ms. Maxwell was a civil defendant in a defamation action premised upon a statement issued by her lawyer in the United Kingdom that Giuffre’s claims were “obvious lies”—a statement that was, as shown above, true. Whether Ms. Maxwell was able to make a list of “girls” who were at Mr. Epstein’s properties, knew who Epstein was having sex with (apparently when Ms. Maxwell was having sex with Epstein), was aware of the “presence of toys or devices,” or gave a massage to Epstein or Accuser-2 was completely irrelevant to the defamation litigation. Ms. Maxwell’s testimony could not have influenced any fact finder in the civil case, nor could the questions—no matter how they were answered—have reasonably led to any admissible evidence in the defamation action, which required Giuffre to prove that her statements about her age, her being trafficked to unspecified “foreign presidents” and Professor Dershowitz, or whether President Clinton flew on a helicopter piloted by Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as other demonstrably false statements, were true.° ® In the event that Counts Five and Six are not dismissed, Ms. Maxwell would request that additional excerpts be read those to the jury beyond those set forth in the Indictment, including but not limited to those set forth in this motion, for purposes of completeness. See Fed. R. Evid. 106. 20 DOJ-OGR- 00002434