DOJ-OGR-00004234.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 287 Filed 05/20/21 Page 7 of 16 compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975). Second, as discussed in Ms. Maxwell’s opening memorandum, the allegations in the Indictment and the extremely limited information contained in the discovery are insufficient to advise Ms. Maxwell of the nature and scope of the charges against her. The government’s opposition provides a perfect illustration of Ms. Maxwell’s point: it discloses entirely new allegations of a involving Accuser-3, which it will seek to introduce at trial, but which are not contained in the Indictment and are not alluded to, or corroborated, anywhere in the over 2.7 million pages of discovery. As aresult of Ms. Maxwell’s Motion to Strike Surplusage (“Surplusage Motion’), the government has apparently recognized that the allegations in the Indictment concerning Accuser- 3 do not constitute direct evidence of the charged conspiracies because: (1) Accuser-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom when the alleged episodes of sexual activity with Epstein took place, and were therefore not illegal, and (11) there is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled. In an attempt to cure these deficiencies, the government now discloses for the first time in its opposition that Accuser-3 will testify that {ic wrrt—“C—Os—s—CCSCisY LF (Opp. 159). Accuser-3 will also testify that PO eS * As discussed more fully in Ms. Maxwell’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Her Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Indictment (“Surplusage Reply”), these new allegations are also not direct evidence of the charged conspiracies and should not be offered as such at trial. DOJ-OGR- 00004234