DOJ-OGR-00005829.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 46 of 84 No. S1 06 Cr. 34 (JFK), 2007 WL 1288597, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2007) (citing United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992)); United States v. Van Putten, No. 04 Cr. 803 (PKL), 2005 WL 612723, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2005) (similar). As also discussed in Section II, supra, evidence of “other acts” is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it is (1) advanced for a proper purpose, such as to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident’; (2) relevant to the crimes for which the defendant is on trial; and (3) has probative value which is not substantially outweighed by any unfair prejudicial effect. See Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182. If requested, such evidence must be admitted with limiting instructions to the jury. See United States v. Edwards, 342 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2003). The Second Circuit “ha[s] adopted an inclusionary approach to evaluating Rule 404(b) evidence, which allows evidence to be received at trial for any purpose other than to attempt to demonstrate the defendant’s criminal propensity.” /d. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). C. Discussion Minor Victim-3’s testimony is direct evidence of the charged criminal conduct— specifically, the conspiracies in Counts One and Three of the Indictment. | —s—s—sdY a. The Government expects that Minor Victim-3’s testimony, which concerns a period of time overlapping with or in close proximity to other Minor Victims’ experiences with the defendant and Epstein and concerns teenagers of similar ages, will significantly overlap with the testimony of those other Minor Victims. Put simply, Minor Victim-3’s account is 45 DOJ-OGR-00005829