DOJ-OGR-00000279.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 - Filed 07/11/19 Page 6 of 16 future danger when viewed in the context of the unparalleled global media attention the case has gamered, including the creation of a website by the government requesting witnesses claiming abuse to come forward. Accordingly, any danger that Mr. Epstein may have once posed to the community has long since abated. At the very least, this enormous gap in time precludes a finding by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the community’s safety.° The rebuttable presumption of a risk of flight is negated by the evidence that the government had stated it believed it could prosecute Mr. Epstein for the very same conduct for which he was immunized, albeit in a second jurisdiction, despite the protections conferred upon him under the NPA. Mr. Epstein’s continuous presence in the United States even while he had a residence out of the country reinforces the point. As detailed below, Mr. Epstein understood the NPA as a global resolution of any charges arising from the alleged conduct at issue here, including conduct in New York. Indeed, the government, in a Southern District of Florida filing ® The government vastly overreaches in painting Mr. Epstein as dangerous based on musty plea discussions. The government’s argument that Mr. Epstein’s release would risk obstructive behavior, at pages 8-9 of its submission, rests primarily upon statements made between Mr. Epstein’s prior counsel and an Assistant U.S. Attorney while they searched for a federal offense, at the government’s behest, with a one-year statutory maximum or guideline during the give-and- take of those of plea negotiations. The communication from prior counsel about a potential proffer for a federal charge was met with the response that there was no sufficient evidence to charge such an offense. These purported facts were mere allegations that did not ultimately manifest themselves in any agreement by Mr. Epstein — nor in any agreement that probable cause existed to support any obstruction or assault charge. And the documents from the Southern District of Florida litigation referenced by the government in support of its argument on this point expressly acknowledge this lack of substantiation. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, 08-CV-80736 (S.D. Fla.), Dkt. 361-10 (prosecutor stating, “[o]n the obstruction charges, many of the facts that I included in that first proffer were hypothesized based upon our discussions and the agents’ observations of [redacted]. We will need to interview her to confirm the accuracy of those facts. . . .”), Dkt. 361-11 (prosecutor stating, “I know that someone mentioned there being activity on an airplane, I just wanted to make sure that there is factual basis for the plea that the agents can confirm”), Dkt. 361-9 (prosecutor stating, “I don’t know the factual basis for the alleged [redacted] because we have no independent evidence of that’). In short, these were suggested hypotheses not facts, and the government itself ultimately did not believe there was factual support for the allegations. They do not provide a sufficiently reliable factual basis for any finding by clear and convincing evidence. As to the suggestion by the prosecutor that a charge could be predicated on a prior incident where it was alleged that an investigator forced a family member of a witness off the road, the defense is without knowledge as to the basis for this allegation and the conduct, if it occurred, was not attributable to or authorized by Mr. Epstein. DOJ-OGR-00000279