DOJ-OGR-00006887.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 7 of52 Ghislaine Maxwell hereby submits her Reply In Support of Her Motions in Limine. I. THIS COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF ALLEGED CO- CONSPIRATOR STATEMENTS AS A SANCTION FOR GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS COURT’S SEPTEMBER 3, 2021 ORDER The government offers several excuses for its failure to comply with this Court’s September 3, 2021 Order. These excuses are insufficient and should be rejected. A. The Court’s Order was Neither Ambiguous Nor Misread by the Defense First, the government suggests that Ms. Maxwell has misread the Order. We disagree. The Court unambiguously rejected the government’s position and ruled that the government’s expressed concern about disclosure “does not outweigh the risk of surprise to the Defendant in this case or the need for the parties to litigate co-conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay.” Dkt. 335 at 3. To both “avoid the risk of surprise” and “litigate co- conspirator issues in advance of trial to ensure the absence of delay, ” the Court identified two things that were necessary from the government: First, no later than October 11, 2021, the government was required to “disclose to the defense the identities of any unnamed co- conspirators who allegedly participated in the conspiracies charged in the S2 indictment to whom the government will refer at trial.” Jd. Second, the Court, unambiguously and emphatically, directed: “The Government is FURTHER ORDERED to disclose a// co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial no later than October 11, as consistent with this Court’s scheduling order. Dkt. No. 297 at 1.” (emphasis in original.) The Court used the word “disclose” both as to the identity of the co-conspirators “to whom the government will refer to at trial” and “a// co-conspirator hearsay statements it intends to offer at trial....” The government, in an attempt to blunt the Order, decided to interpret the same word, “disclose” in materially distinct fashions. As to the identity of the co-conspirators, the government disclosed (7.e., identified) three names. When it was parsing the second part of DOJ-OGR-00006887