DOJ-OGR-00008406.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO Ww a OY 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 24 24 LB1TMAX1 ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Third piece of guidance: The Court will exclude from vidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and its particular terms. to the bias and financial The defense argues the NPA is relevant interest of two witnesses. One anticipated witness received immunity from criminal prosecution under the NPA. Additional] y, under the NPA, Epstein agreed to pay for a lawyer for an al leged victim who was anticipated to testify and agreed not to contest her civil suit against him. The civil suit ended in a settlement with respect to an alleged victim. witnesses about Of course, defendants are always able to cross-examine relevant bias. For example, cross-examination about civil litigation or civil claims against Epstein or others and related financi al incentive are fair grounds. Moreover, cooperating witnesses are commonly cross-examined about how testimony may af fect the sentence that they receive. And if it were the case that any witness were to receive testimonial immunity in this case, the defense may cross-examine about that. any bias or incentive to f to the NPA. Regardless of might testify, th in the Southern But the defense has not explained abricate that results from or relates how the witness covered by the NPA at witness will remain protected under the NPA District of Florida, and as I already ruled, the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of SOUTHERN D STRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008406