DOJ-OGR-00003084.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 150 of 239 jury.”). At this stage, the defendant must identify defects so fundamental that the charged statements cannot, as a matter of law, support a perjury conviction. She has failed to do so, and her motion should be denied. 1. April 2016 Deposition At the April 2016 deposition, Giuffre’s counsel asked the defendant about how Giuffre came to Epstein’s home (Ex. 10 at 14:9-17:4), whether hired massage therapists engaged in sexual activity with Epstein (id. at 51:13-55:16), and the defendant’s knowledge of Epstein’s Florida criminal case (id. at 171:25-173:12, 183:25-186:21), among other topics. The transcript makes clear that when the defendant did not understand a question, she said so. (See, e.g., id. at 9:4-9 (“[C]an you please clarify the question. I don’t understand what you mean by female, I don’t understand what you mean by recruit.”), 39:23-24 (“I don’t understand what your question is asking.”’), 94:18-95:4 (“You don’t ask me questions like that. First of all, you are trying to trap me, I will not be trapped.’’), 138:6 (“Define relationship.”), 244:22-23 (“You are not asking me a good question, sorry.”’). Count Five charges the defendant with perjury arising from two colloquies at this deposition. First, Giuffre’s counsel asked the defendant a series of questions about whether the defendant brought women to Epstein, which the defendant resisted by observing that she hired “people across the board” to “work for Jeffrey.” (Ud. at 245:7-18). Giuffre’s counsel asked whether any minors worked as exercise instructors or masseuses at Epstein’s home, and the defendant testified that they were all adults except for Giuffre, who she acknowledged at least claimed to have been seventeen. (/d. at 246:18-251:12). Giuffre’s counsel then asked questions about whether Epstein had a “sexual preference for underage minors,” which drew objections from 123 DOJ-OGR-00003084