HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013390.jpg

E.W. against you has?” Reasonable inference: E.W.’s claim against Epstein had substantial actual value. Without repeating each and every invocation of the Fifth Amendment that Epstein has mnie and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those invocations of privilege, the big picture is unmistakably clear: No reasonable finder of fact could rule in Epstein’s favor on his claims against Edwards. Accordingly, Edwards is entitled to summary judgment based on the Fifth Amendment inferences that the jury would draw. , | The inferences against Epstein are not limited to those arising from his privilege assertions. Epstein’s guilt is also reasonably inferred from his harassment of, intimidation of, efforts to exercise control over, and limitation of access to witnesses who might testify against Epsiein’s efforts to intimidate his victims support the inference that Epstein knew that theiy were going to provide compelling testimony against him. The evidence that Epstein tampered with witnesses (later designated as his accomplices and co-conspirators) will be admissible to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt. “(It is precisely because of the egregious nature of such conduct that the law expressly permits the jury to make adverse inferences from a party's efforts to intimidate witnesses... .” Jost v. Ahmad, 730 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2™ Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). To be clear, Epstein’s attempt to tamper with witnesses is “not simply admissible as impeachment evidence of the tampering party's credibility. The opposing party is entitled to introduce facts regarding efforts to intimidate a ves as substantive evidence.” Id. at 711 (emphasis in original) (internal citation omitted). This substantive evidence of Epstein’s witness intimidation provides yet another reason why no reasonable jury could find in favor of his claims against Edwards. 21 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013390