DOJ-OGR-00002915.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document199_ Filed 04/09/21 Page3of8 Page 3 somehow misled the defendant or the Court as to its intentions. The Government was accurate in its representation at the July 14, 2020 initial appearance in this case both that the Government’s “investigation remain[ed] ongoing” and that the Government “d[id] not currently anticipate seeking a superseding indictment.” (July 14, 2020 Tr. at 17 (emphasis added)). Both statements were entirely accurate. At the time of the initial appearance in this case, the Government had not yet interviewed Minor Victim-4, so it had no way of anticipating that it would develop evidence warranting a new charging instrument. However, both at that appearance and in subsequent communications with the Court, the Government repeatedly noted that its investigation remained ongoing, and, more recently, when the Government did have some reason to believe that it might be able to seek a superseding indictment, it signaled as much in its February 26, 2021 opposition to the defense’s pretrial motions. (See Gov’t Mem. of Law in Opp. to Def. Pretrial Mots. at 3 n.1 (“As the Government has repeatedly indicated, the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s co- conspirators remains ongoing. (See, e.g., Gov’t Letter dated Aug. 21, 2020, Dkt. No. 46; Gov’t Letter dated Oct. 6, 2020, Dkt. No. 60; Gov’t Letter dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65). To the extent that investigation results in additional charges against the defendant, the Government intends to seek any superseding indictment at least three months in advance of trial.”’)). Consistent with that representation, the Government obtained the S2 Indictment more than three months before the July 12, 2021 trial date. motions and before its response was due. In such a world, it would make no sense for the Government to spend weeks preparing a more than 200-page response to those motions if the Government could have instead just obtained a new indictment. The defense’s conspiracy theories aside, the Government vigorously opposed the defense’s pretrial motions because, in its view, they are all meritless. At the same time, the Government was conducting an investigation into additional criminal conduct by the defendant, and it charged her with that conduct as expeditiously as the investigation would permit. DOJ-OGR-00002915