DOJ-OGR-00003002.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 68 of 239 court resolved the issue by answering a common sense question: “Does someone who merely possesses child pornography sexually abuse the child portrayed in the images?” /d. at 817. This inquiry has no relevance here, as this case does not involve the possession of child pornography. The crimes charged in the Indictment plainly involved the sexual abuse of minors. First, the Indictment clearly alleges that the minor victims were subjected to actual, physical sexual contact as part of the defendant’s crimes. See Indictment at 4 4 (alleging that conduct toward minor victims involved sexual abuse), 5 (alleging that “Epstein’s resulting abuse of minor victims included, among other things, touching a victim’s breast, touching a victim’s genitals, placing a sex toy such as a vibrator on a victim’s genitals, directing a victim to touch Epstein while he masturbated, and directing a victim to touch Epstein’s genitals.”’), 7 (describing patterns of sexual abuse). Moreover, the Indictment alleges that the defendant persuaded, induced, enticed, and transported minors for purposes of engaging in criminal sexual activity, and that she conspired to do the same. As discussed above, the offenses charged in the Indictment accordingly involved the sexual abuse of minors as defined in Section 3509(a) and incorporated into Section 3283. Because the defendant’s crimes involved sexual abuse, the expanded statute of limitations set forth in Section 3283 applies to the crimes charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment and her motion should be denied. Il. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre- Trial Delay Should Be Denied The defendant contends that the Indictment should be dismissed because the Government’s delay in bringing the charges violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Def. Mot. 7). The defendant has not and cannot successfully establish such a violation. First, the defendant has not established that any alleged pre-indictment delay caused actual prejudice to the defense. Her speculative assertions about lost witnesses and records are hardly the sort of evidence that she 41 DOJ-OGR-00003002