DOJ-OGR-00005707.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 389 Filed 10/29/21 Page6of11 charges, alleging that the statements are proof of an effort by Ms. Maxwell to “conceal” her involvement in facilitating the sexual abuse of Jeffrey Epstein. See S2 Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 187) J] 2 (second sentence), 10. For these same reasons discussed in the Court’s severance ruling, and for the reasons set forth below, the government should not be allowed to introduce at trial the deposition statements or any evidence related to the severed perjury counts for this purpose or for any other purpose. Furthermore, the Court should redact from the superseding indictment the two perjury counts and the allegations concerning Ms. Maxwell’s alleged effort to “conceal” her conduct. See id. 4 2 (second sentence), 10, 28-31. ARGUMENT I. The Court Should Exclude Evidence Related to the Perjury Counts and Redact Those Allegations from the Superseding Indictment Consistent with its prior ruling, the Court should exclude any evidence related to the severed perjury counts to prove a purported attempt by Ms. Maxwell to “conceal” her involvement in the other offenses charged in the superseding indictment. First, the alleged false deposition statements would have no probative value as evidence of concealment unless the government could establish that the statements were, in fact, false — an allegation that Ms. Maxwell vigorously disputes. As the Court noted in its severance opinion, the issue of whether the deposition statements were false or truthful, as Ms. Maxwell maintains, is “a critical element of the perjury counts” that would need to be resolved by the jury. 4/16/2021 Op. and Order (Dkt. 207) at 24. The government therefore could not introduce Ms. Maxwell’s deposition statements as evidence of concealment without litigating the core factual and legal issues at the heart of the perjury counts. Allowing the government to do so would entirely defeat the purpose of severing the perjury counts in the first place. DOJ-OGR-00005707