DOJ-OGR-00007442.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 494 _ Filed 11/22/21 Page6of12 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 11, 2021 Page 6 Rule 404(b) and should be excluded. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1) (“Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”); see also United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 57 (2d Cir. 2011) (Rule 404(b) evidence “serves a proper purpose so long as it is not offered to show the defendant’s propensity to commit the offense”). The government has been completely candid that its primary purpose for introducing Accuser-3’s evidence is to show Epstein’s alleged “sexual preference” for young girls and Ms. Maxwell’s purported knowledge of his sexual preference. In support of its argument, the government has frequently pointed to a particular anecdote in Accuser-3’s testimony in which she [| But this anecdote highlights why admitting Accuser-3’s testimony for this purpose is both logically flawed and legally impermissible.! First, as a factual matter, this testimony does not show Epstein’s “sexual preference” for underaged girls or Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of that alleged preference. ee 1 To be clear, the admissibility of Accuser-3’s testimony about is a separate topic that has been separately briefed and argued. We discuss this anecdote here to refute the admissibility of Accuser-3’s testimony to prove Epstein’s alleged “sexual preference” for young girls. 2049808. 1 DOJ-OGR-00007442