DOJ-OGR-00006455.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 _ Filed 11/12/21 Page 38 of 69 whom the government identified as a victim of his offenses so that they could sue him for damages in civil lawsuits. See NPA at 4 was one of those individuals. The NPA further stipulated that Epstein could not contest his liability in those lawsuits and could not contest the amount of money damages as long as it was agreed upon by the parties. See id yy | Epstein under this provision of the NPA and eventually settled with him for Dn \ccordingly, the NPA is relevant and admissible, and the defense is entitled to use it to cross-examin PE bout her financial interest. See United States v. Lester, 248 F.2d 329, 334 (2d Cir. 1957) (“it is permissible to show [on cross-examination] that the witness is financially interested in the outcome of the litigation); Crowe v. Bolduc, 334 F.3d 124, 132 (1st Cir. 2003) (evidence that a trial witness has a financial incentive in the outcome of the trial is “classic evidence of bias, which is routinely permitted on cross-examination’’); United States v. Dees, 34 F.3d 838, 844 (9th Cir. 1994) (the question of whether witness had financial interest in outcome of trial is “critical” to the jury’s determination of credibility). There is also little risk that the jury will be confused by the introduction of the NPA. The Florida Investigation, which the NPA concluded, will already be a significant part of the government’s case-in-chief. It is clear from the government’s witness list and exhibit list that it intends to call at least two members of the Palm Beach Police Department, 3x HE (© introduce various items of evidence that were recovered from the search of Epstein’s Palm Beach residence in October 2005. These include numerous message pad slips as well as photographs and video of the exterior and interior of the Palm Beach residence. See GX-1-A through GX-1-P; GX-2-A through GX-2-W; GX-3-A through GX-3-KK; GX-4-A through GX-4-K.; GX-201 through GX-296. 30 DOJ-OGR-00006455