DOJ-OGR-00007425.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 492 Filed 11/22/21 Page8of13 Page 8 the defendant knew that, when she arranged for a young girl—such as Minor Victim-1 or Minor Victim-4— to give Epstein a massage, that massage involved sexual contact. Second, the evidence is relevant to the defendant’s motive. The Government expects the defense to argue that the defendant had no reason to assist Epstein in obtaining sexualized massages, especially from young girls. Minor Victim-3 will testify that Third, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3 is probative of her intent. “‘Where intent to commit the crime charged is clearly at issue’—1.e., where it is an element of the crime—‘evidence of prior similar acts may be introduced to prove that intent.’” United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (quoting United States v. Caputo, 808 F.2d 963, 968 (2d Cir. 1987)). The defendant is likely to argue that any steps taken to arrange massages were purely innocent conduct. See id. (“Prior act evidence is admissible to demonstrate 399 intent ‘where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation.’” (quoting Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182 (alterations omitted))). Evidence of the defendant’s knowledge that massages were sexualized and the defendant’s motives described above is probative of her intent to entice and transport minors for the purpose of sexual contact. Minor Victim-3’s sexualized massages began around the time the conspiracy started, yet the massages continued—with the defendant’s active involvement, as to Minor Victim-3 and other Minor Victims—for years. That is highly probative evidence of her intent as to each of the conspiracies charged in the Indictment. And Minor Victim-3’s testimony contains additional evidence of the defendant’s intent. For instance, DOJ-OGR-00007425