DOJ-OGR-00003982.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 244 _ Filed 04/23/21 Page11of14 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan April 2, 2021 Page 11 defendants and material either to his guilt or eventual punishment such evidence must be made available to that defendant as Brady material.”). Request 10 is another piece of physical evidence, boots purportedly purchased by Epstein for alleged victim 2. Once again, the government has scrupulously avoided actually obtaining the evidence, and Ms. Maxwell seeks to use Rule 17 as it is intended, to examine the boots in advance of trial. The examination will identify the make and provenance of the boots, something which would be difficult to do during any trial without significant delay. Similarly, the photographs listed in Request 11 are physical evidence that exists -- copies were produced by BSF in civil litigation, the photographs are admittedly relevant, and admissible as evidence. Again, the government has not obtained the originals. Accordingly, no one knows the dates of creation or any other specifics related to these items of evidence. Because the government is failing at its job to seek justice, not a conviction, Ms. Maxwell needs the Court’s help in establishing her innocence. Request 12 Request 12 asks for EVCP Material, the submissions by BSF on behalf of witnesses who will testify for the government in this matter, and the settlement materials obtained as a result. We know that alleged victim 2 and her sister, along with Virginia Giuffre, are all represented by BSF and made claims against Epstein which in some fashion involved Ms. Maxwell. BSF argues that the request for this information is premature because according to BSF it is merely “impeachment” evidence and that the information should be classified as “witness statements” not reachable by a Rule 17 (c) subpoena. BSF is wrong on both counts. First, the documents do not meet the definition of “witness statements.” These are submissions to a fund requesting large sums of money and the DOJ-OGR- 00003982