DOJ-OGR-00004294.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 29 of 32 Maxwell had been indicted and publicly vilified in the press as Epstein’s primary accomplice, did Accuser-4 suddenly allege for the very first time that Ms. Maxwell was involved in Epstein’s sexual abuse. Accuser-4 now claims that Ms. Maxwell, among other things, “groomed” her to engage in sexualized massages with Epstein, encouraged her to recruit others to do the same, and was present when Accuser-4 was nude in the massage room of the Palm Beach Residence. (S2 Indictment § 9d). Had Ms. Maxwell, in fact, done the things that Accuser-4 now accuses her of doing, Accuser-4 certainly would have mentioned it to the FBI and those allegations would have been part of the SDFL grand jury presentation. Ms. Maxwell surely would have been named as a co-conspirator in the proposed 60-count indictment like a That never happened. (See Ex. A, OPR Report at 167 (internal quotations omitted)) (USAO-SDFL never found “any specific evidence against” Ms. Maxwell related to the subject of the investigation). An informed witness who fails to mention the defendant when making a report to law enforcement is exculpatory under Brady. United States v. Torres, 719 F.2d 549, 555-56 (2d Cir. 1983); Jones v. Jago, 575 F.2d 1164, 1168 (6th Cir. 1978); Clemmons v. Delo, 124 F.3d 944, 952 (8th Cir. 1997); White v. Helling, 194 F.3d 937, 944 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Accuser-4’s prior statements to the FBI, and any other prior statements in which she did not mention Ms. Maxwell, are exculpatory Brady material that the government must immediately produce to the defense. As the Court ruled: The Government must disclose to the defense all information ‘favorable to an accused’ that is ‘material either to guilt or to punishment’ and that is known to the Government. .. . The Government shall disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case. (Dkt. 68 at 1) (emphasis added). 25 DOJ-OGR- 00004294