DOJ-OGR-00004289.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 _ Filed 05/25/21 Page 24 of 32 evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies and that the defendant is not being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime.” /d. at 467 (citations omitted). As previously discussed, it is clear from the grand jury testimony that Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment charge the same offenses based on the same allegations of Accuser-4 that were presented to the SDFL grand jury and formed the basis for a conspiracy count and a substantive sex trafficking count in the proposed SDFL indictment. (See Section I supra). The government cannot make a contrary showing. Accordingly, prosecuting Epstein for Counts Five and Six would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. And because Epstein negotiated immunity for Ms. Maxwell and any other “potential co-conspirators” as part of the terms of the NPA, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those crimes either. See United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603, 637 (2d Cir. 1979) (“If [the defendant’s] earlier plea is found to bar prosecution of him because of double jeopardy, since concededly the plea included an agreement to drop the charges against [his wife], the instant prosecution of [his wife] will also be barred.”). Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment must therefore be dismissed. Til. Counts Five and Six Are Time-Barred. Counts Five and Six should also be dismissed because they are time-barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282. In its previous motions related to the S1 Indictment, the government asserted that the Mann Act counts (Counts One through Four) are timely because they are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for “offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse ... of a child under the age of 18 years” to “during the life of the child.” (Dkt. 204 at 24-26, 36-41). Ms. Maxwell argued that 18 U.S.C. § 3283 did not apply to the Mann Act offenses because they do not “necessarily entail” the sexual abuse of a minor and therefore are not “offense[s] involving” such conduct. (Dkt. 144 at 12-17; Dkt. 206 at 10-15). The Court ruled in favor of the 20 DOJ-OGR-00004289