DOJ-OGR-00008391.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document548- Filed 12/15/21 Page5of6 Fourth, the Defense argues that a pseudonym is justified for one witness because, under the Government’s theory of the case, she is a victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. There are at least two problems with this justification. First, based on the Defense’s current explanation of this witness’s anticipated testimony, this witness will testify that she was not the target of any sexual misconduct by Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. She would therefore fall outside the scope of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which defines a victim as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). Though the Act’s definition of victim is “expansive,” the Defense has not identified a way in which this witness was harmed, “whether physically, financially, psychologically, or otherwise” by an offense allegedly committed by Ms. Maxwell. United States v. Ray, 337 F.R.D. 561, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see also In re Ippolito, 811 F. App’x 795, 797 (3d Cir. 2020) (“[O]ne does not acquire status under the CVRA based on his own say-so.”). Second, and relatedly, the Court understands that this witness will testify that sexual conduct did not occur. Consequently, the testimony does not raise the same risks of embarrassment or harassment as did the other witnesses’ testimony, nor does it risk deterring alleged victims of sexual abuse from coming forward in future cases. The Court therefore rejects this basis for permitting testimony under a pseudonym. The Defense’s fifth argument is that the Court permitted two non-alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms, which justifies permitting its witnesses to do the same. But as the Court explained, it permitted two non-victims to testify under pseudonym only “because the disclosure of their identities would necessarily reveal the identities of the alleged victims.” Nov. 1 Tr. at 8. The Defense has not identified any similar dynamic here. Last, the Court emphasizes that while it currently denies the Defense’s motion, the DOJ-OGR- 00008391