DOJ-OGR-00007426.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 492 Filed 11/22/21 Page9of13 Page 9 the Government anticipates that Minor Victim-3 will testify that LY Fourth, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is evidence of the conspiracy’s plan or modus operandi. “[T]o establish a recurring modus operandi . . . it is enough that the characteristics relied upon are sufficiently idiosyncratic to permit a fair inference of a pattern’s existence.” United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). The pattern here is highly idiosyncratic. The defendant identified Minor Victim-3, befriended her, and invited her over. ee All this happened during the conspiracy, and at least one of the other Minor Victims will testify to each step in this pattern. “[T]aken together, they establish the existence of a pattern.” United States v. Carlton, 534 F.3d 97, 102 (2d Cir. 2008). The defense argues that none of this is probative under Rule 404(b) because Minor Victim- 3 was above the age of consent, so evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is not probative of the defendant’s “intent of doing something illegal,” such as a sex act with a minor. (11/01/21 Tr. 82:8- 16). That, however, is just a way of repeating that all the elements of the offense are not satisfied as to Minor Victim-3. But evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is probative of central questions about the defendant’s knowledge, motive, intent, and role in the conspiracy. For instance, the Government expects that the defense may challenge (1) whether the defendant played a role in recruiting girls to give Epstein massages; (2) whether those girls were below or near the age of consent; (3) whether the defendant instructed those girls to give Epstein a massage, including by DOJ-OGR-00007426