DOJ-OGR-00002882.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document191 Filed 03/30/21 Page6éof7 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan March 22, 2021 Page 6 of 7 they have not demonstrated the relevance of all of the evidence they seek.”). The Defendant simply cannot demonstrate that a// of the information submitted on behalf of a// of BSF’s clients would be relevant and admissible in this matter.’ Further, the Defendant has made it clear that she seeks to use the “EVCP Material” for impeachment purposes. She has requested not only BSF’s submissions to the Program, but also any releases signed by BSF’s clients and any compensation received by BSF’s clients. The Defendant already attempted to obtain information about Annie Farmer’s compensation by the Program in Ms. Farmer’s recently dismissed civil action against the Defendant. In the Defendant’s submissions in that matter, she explicitly stated that she sought the information in order to impeach Ms. Farmer if she were to testify at her criminal trial: By contrast, there is substantial evidence that [Ms. Farmer] and [BSF] filed this case with a serious ulterior motive to fabricate a story against Ms. Maxwell some 24 years after the fact. The motives include, but are not limited to, increasing the cash consideration that she might receive from the Epstein Victims Compensation Program (“EVCP”). . . . Just as [Ms. Farmer] has a public right to make her false allegations in a lawsuit and in the news, so Ms. Maxwell should have the right to make public the simple fact that plaintiff did not have a desire for “justice,” she had a desire for money. . . Second, as previously explained, Ms. Farmer has publicly self-identified as one of the accusers mentioned in the indictment in the criminal case, 20-cr-330 (AJN). She will no doubt be one of the prosecution’s key witnesses. The inability to obtain an unredacted copy of the release, including the consideration received by Ms. Farmer, creates legal prejudice to Ms. Maxwell’s ability to confront Ms. Farmer during her criminal trial on general issues of bias and motive for fabrication, as is her right under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Lorna G. Schofield at 2-3, Annie Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke, et al., 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2021), ECF No. 114; see also Letter from L. Menninger to Hon. Debra C. Freeman at 3, Annie Farmer v. Darren K. Indyke, et al., 19-cv-10475 (LGS-DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020), ECF No. 108 (“Certainly, the amount of money that [Ms. Farmer] has been offered by the [EVCP] in exchange for her un-tested story will be an issue in the upcoming criminal trial when plaintiff takes the stand, for the first time, and faces cross-examination. . . . The motive for fabrication could not be clearer.”).4 Thus, the “EVCP 3 Further, a Rule 17 subpoena may not be used to seek the prior statements of an anticipated trial witness. Rule 17 expressly prohibits a party from serving a subpoena for this purpose. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(h) (“No party may subpoena a statement of a witness or of a prospective witness under this rule.”). The claims submitted as part of the “EVCP Material” include statements made by potential witnesses. 4 Again, however, even the impeachment value of Annie Farmer’s EVCP compensation determination is dubious. Ms. Farmer may have received compensation after submitting a claim to the Program, but that does not show a potential motive for festifving for the prosecution in this separate criminal action. DOJ-OGR- 00002882