DOJ-OGR-00005833.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 50 of 84 massages were sexualized, evidence that she did so in the case of Minor Victim-3—at roughly the same time as Epstein was abusing Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2—1s “necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.” United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22, 37 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Robinson argued at trial that Jane Doe was his ‘girlfriend’ and that he had no control over her prostitution activities. Evidence that Robinson was in the prostitution business and controlled prostitutes other than Jane Doe was therefore ‘necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.’”). The defense focuses on allegations involving Minor Victim-3 in isolation. In its attempt to confuse the issues, the defense argues that the defendant’s conduct with Minor Victim-3 was lawful in the United Kingdom, and that Minor Victim-3 was an adult when she ultimately traveled to the United States and was abused by Epstein. The defense states that “[a]s to [Minor Victim- 3], the completed endeavor—i.e., her alleged sex acts with Epstein—was not a substantive criminal offense.” (Def. Mot. 4 at 8 (emphasis in original)). The defense then claims—without any basis— that the allegations relating to Minor Victim-3 in the Indictment are “of no consequence,” because “the government evidently charged the conduct under the mistaken belief that [Minor Victim-3] was a minor when she engaged in sex acts with Epstein.” (/d. at 9-10). According to the defense, the government “did not know that [Minor Victim-3] was above the [age] of consent in the U.K. The government presented [Minor Victim-3]’s allegations to the grand jury incorrectly assuming that she was a minor and that the alleged sex acts between Epstein and [Minor Victim-3] were illegal.” (/d. at 1-2). 49 DOJ-OGR-00005833