DOJ-OGR-00004222.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 286 Filed 05/20/21 Page9of14 government’s allegations regarding Accuser-3 are thus not in furtherance of, and are irrelevant to, any alleged conspiracy to cause minors to travel to engage in unlawful sex acts. II. The Allegations Regarding Accuser-3 Are Unduly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. The government now concedes that when it alleges that Epstein “sexually abused” Accuser-3 with Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge and assistance, the purported “sexual abuse” to which the government refers was entirely lawful conduct—and that the sole basis for the government’s characterization of that lawful conduct as “sexual abuse” was Accuser-3’s “subjective experience” of consensual sex acts. Opp. 162 n.57. Such a characterization is, to say the least, grossly misleading. As the government argued in a 2017 Supreme Court case, the term “sexual abuse” implies a crime. See Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S.Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017) (“Sexual abuse of a minor,’ the Government accordingly contends, ‘most naturally connotes conduct that (1) is i//egal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger Br than 18 years old.’”) (quoting government’s brief) (emphases added). Merriam-Webster’s legal dictionary defines “sexual abuse” as (1) “the infliction of sexual contact upon a person by forcible compulsion,” (ii) “engaging in sexual contact with a person who is below a specified age or who is incapable of giving consent because of age or mental or physical incapacity,” or (iii) “the crime of engaging in or inflicting sexual abuse.” “Sexual abuse,” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https:/(www.merriam-webster.com/legal/sexual%20abuse, accessed 11 Mar. 2021. Although the government concedes its inability to establish that Accuser-3’s alleged interactions with Ms. Maxwell and Epstein were anything other than consensual and lawful, it insists that it has “accurately” characterized those allegations and that “it is neither misleading nor prejudicial to imply that this activity involved illegal conduct.” Opp. 165. The government’s rationale is baseless and untenable: Since the government has alleged that lawful DOJ-OGR-00004222