Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00380.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-36 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 10 quite clear that the types of questions posed to Mr. Epstein, leading pejorative questions, designed to suggest that the answer would be yes, are precisely the types of questions that should be excluded from evidence under 403. Opposition to Motion to Present Epstein Testimony at 12. Requiring Mr. Epstein’s live Fifth Amendment invocation in front of the jury in response to the very same questions would be no less prejudicial and no more probative and would provide no independent basis to justify the burdens it imposes on Mr. Epstein or the damage to the integrity of the trial which will likely result from the media circus generated by Mr. Epstein’s personal appearance. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Mr. Epstein’s Motion to Quash should be granted. Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY EPSTEIN By his attorneys, /s/ Jack Alan Goldberger Jack Alan Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, #1400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 659-8305 (561) 835-8691 (fax) jgoldberger@agwpa.com /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 227-3700 (617) 338-9538 (fax) owlmgw(@att.net