DOJ-OGR-00005414.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page 21 of 54 recently fabricated their allegations about the defendant. See Tome, 513 U.S. at 159, 167 (holding that the Rule “permits the introduction of a declarant’s consistent out-of-court statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive” where “those statements were made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive”). And regardless of the timing of any alleged motive to lie, the Minor Victims’ prior consistent statements will be admissible under subpart (11), which was enacted “to extend substantive effect to consistent statements that rebut other attacks on a witness.” 2014 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Evid. 801 (emphasis added); see Flores, 945 F.3d at 705 (“As ‘not hearsay,’ such statements are—subject to the usual prerequisites such as relevance—admissible as proof of the substance of the statement.”). If the defense attacks the credibility of the Minor Victims on another ground, such as inconsistency or faulty memory, the Government is entitled to rehabilitate the Minor Victims through prior consistent statements made to other witnesses. See, e.g., Purcell, 967 F.3d at 197; Flores, 945 F.3d at 705-06; Cox, 871 F.3d at 487. Wil. The Court Should Preclude Evidence or Argument About Investigations of the Defendant In the 2000s, the Palm Beach Police Department conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, which later became part of an FBI investigation (together, the “Florida Investigations”). Those investigations culminated in a September 2007 non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (““USAO- SDFL”), which did not name the defendant as a co-conspirator, and pursuant to which Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida state offense. In or about November 2018, this Office opened its 20 DOJ-OGR-00005414