Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00167.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 22 excerpts are somehow beyond the scope of Esplin’s expertise. Ms. Giuffre will address this concern at the appropriate time in the appropriate pleading which deals with relevance issues. I. _ EPSTEIN, AND ESPLIN SHOULD ALL BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY VIA DEPOSITION TESTIMONY. Defendant next objects to testimony from Jeffrey Epstein, a: Philip Esplin, claiming that they all “refused to respond to questions.” Mot. at 5. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, all three of the witnesses did, in fact, answer questions and provide useful information. Epstein answered questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. HR 2 swered questions after her recollection about certain events was refreshed. And Esplin answered questions in which he testified favorably for Ms. Giuffre, which led to Ms. Giuffre designating certain parts of his deposition for use at trial. Accordingly, Defendant’s arguments lack merit with respect to all three of these witnesses and her motion should be denied. A. Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein is a pivotally important witness in this case. Ms. Giuffre should be permitted to call him, either live or via deposition, to have him invoke his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer pivotal questions in this case. The jury should then, in its discretion, be permitted to draw such adverse inferences as may be appropriate. This procedure is very clearly recognized in the leading case of LiButti v. United States, 107 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 1997). LiButti articulated several non-exclusive factors to be considered, in light of the circumstances of the case, which should guide a district court in making a determination about whether to allow the jury to hear a Fifth Amendment invocation. LiButti, 107 F.3d at 123-24. The Second Circuit emphasized, however, that whether these or other circumstances unique to a particular case are considered by the trial court, “the overarching