DOJ-OGR-00006634.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 444 Filed 11/12/21 Page8gof21 Accuser-3 was expected to testify at trial that “her swbhjective experience of these acts with a much older man as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive.” /d. at 162 n.57 (emphasis added). The government also represented for the first time that Accuser-3 is expected to testify that — QQ = — GN © Id. Accordingly, Accuser-3 cannot establish that she was a minor when she traveled or when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in the United States. Despite having been alerted to the problems with Accuser-3’s evidence, the government repeated the same allegations related to Accuser-3 in the second superseding indictment filed after the pretrial motions were fully briefed. See S2 Superseding Indictment (Dkt. 187) (“S2 Indictment”) {ff 9(c), 13(d), 19(d). These included the misleading allegations that Accuser-3 was a “minor” and that Epstein had “sexually abused” her. /d. In its opinion and order denying Ms. Maxwell’s motion to strike, the Court agreed that the indictment did not allege that Accuser-3 traveled in interstate commerce or was underage during sexual encounters with Epstein. 4/16/2021 Opinion and Order (Dkt. 207) at 27. Nevertheless, the Court stated that it could not “rule out that the allegations may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell’s state of mind.” /d. The Court further stated that it would reserve the issue for trial and allow Ms. Maxwell to renew her motion then. /d. DOJ-OGR-00006634