DOJ-OGR-00003894.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 21 of 23 cannot be resolved in the government’s favor on this record, and the plain language of the NPA cannot be disregarded without discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The government argues that Ms. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because she has not submitted affidavits, and that she is not entitled to discovery because she has offered only “conjecture.” Opp. 22. But unlike the cases the government cites, Ms. Maxwell has submitted evidence far more powerful than an affidavit claiming an oral agreement: she has submitted the NPA itself, which, on its face, bars her prosecution. See Feldman, 939 F.3d at 184, 190 (hearing based on oral representations made to defendant); United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2002) (granting hearing where defendant submitted attorney affidavits alleging oral agreement); United States v. Sattar, 272 F. Supp. 2d 348, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (same). Ms. Maxwell’s contention that the plain language of the NPA reflects the parties’ intent is not “conjecture,” and the Court cannot find to the contrary without hearing evidence— evidence that we anticipate would confirm that the parties intended the NPA to mean exactly what it says and that it bars the prosecution of Ms. Maxwell, but is unavailable to Ms. Maxwell without discovery.’ In addition, unlike the defendants in the cases the government cites, Ms. Maxwell was a nonparty to the NPA, and her attorneys thus have neither firsthand knowledge of the parties’ intent nor access to evidence regarding the parties’ intent. While the government points out that Ms. Maxwell has not submitted an affidavit from Epstein’s counsel, defense counsel notes that it has made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain information from Jay Lefkowitz, the attorney who was principally involved in negotiating the language of the NPA on Epstein’s behalf. 17 DOJ-OGR- 00003894