DOJ-OGR-00004810.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 310 Filed 07/02/21 Page1of3 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 COHEN & GRESSER LLP +1 212.957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com July 2, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, $2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: We respectfully submit this letter to bring to the Court’s attention the recent decision by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William Henry Cosby Jr., J-100-2020 (Jun. 30, 2021), in which the Court vacated Mr. Cosby’s conviction and sentence because the District Attorney’s Office that prosecuted him failed to live up to its express promise not to prosecute Mr. Cosby for the same crimes for which he was later convicted.! Ms. Maxwell’s case presents a similar situation. As we argued in our supplemental pretrial motions currently pending before the Court (Dkt. 293), the government has failed to abide by its promise not to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for the offenses for which she was immunized by the Epstein Non- Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”). We submit that this decision provides support for Ms. Maxwell’s supplemental motion to dismiss Counts One, Three, Five, and Six of the S2 Indictment for violation of the NPA. In Cosby, Andrea Constand alleged that Mr. Cosby sexually assaulted her in his residence in January 2004. (Op. 4-5). Ms. Constand did not immediately report the assault to law enforcement authorities and continued to have contact with Mr. Cosby in the following months. (Id. at 5-7). In January 2005, approximately one year after the assault, Ms. Constand reported Mr. Cosby’s conduct to the police. (/d. at 6). The Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office investigated the allegations, but then-District Attorney Bruce Castor determined that “there was insufficient credible and admissible evidence” to bring criminal charges against Mr. Cosby. (/d. at 7-10). Among the factors weighing against bringing charges were that (1) Ms. Constand had waited a year to file her complaint, which diminished the reliability of Ms. Constand’s recollections; (ii) Ms. Constand’s statements about the events were inconsistent; (iii) there was a lack of corroborating evidence; (iv) Ms. Constand continued to speak to and meet with Mr. Cosby ! The opinion (“Op.”) is attached to this letter as Exhibit A. DOJ-OGR-00004810