DOJ-OGR-00006632.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 444 _ Filed 11/12/21 Page6of21 Accuser-3 were illegal. Indeed, referring to Accuser-3 in the indictment as “Minor Victim-3” is entirely misleading — there is no evidence that she was a “minor” when any of the alleged sex acts took place. Nevertheless, even after the defense pointed out in our pretrial motions that Accuser-3 was not a minor and had not alleged any illegal conduct, the government repeated her allegations verbatim to the grand jury and in the S2 Superseding Indictment. This was not only misleading, it was also an end-run around Rule 404(b). Simply including the conduct alleged by Accuser-3 in the indictment does not mean that it is evidence of the charged conspiracies. The conduct alleged by Accuser-3 is not within the scope of the charged conspiracies and the Court should not admit this evidence as proof of those charges. Nor should the Court admit this evidence as “other act” evidence under Rule 404(b). This evidence would only be offered to show criminal propensity, despite the alleged conduct being entirely legal, and would mislead the jury and unfairly prejudice Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, the Court should exclude evidence related to Accuser-3. BACKGROUND The original indictment against Ms. Maxwell, filed on June 29, 2020, and the first superseding indictment, filed on July 8, 2020, included the following allegations related to Accuser-3: MAXWELL groomed and befriended [Accuser-3] in London, England between approximately 1994 and 1995, including during a period of time in which MAXWELL knew that [Accuser-3] was under the age of 18. Among other things, MAXWELL discussed [Accuser-3’s] life and family with [Accuser-3]. MAXWELL introduced [Accuser-3] to Epstein and arranged for multiple interactions between [Accuser-3] and Epstein. During those interactions, MAXWELL encouraged [Accuser-3] to massage Epstein, knowing that Epstein would engage in sex acts with [Accuser-3] during those massages. [Accuser-3] provided Epstein DOJ-OGR- 00006632