DOJ-OGR-00008508.jpg

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document562 _ Filed 12/17/21 Page 52 of 82 about April of 2004 and May of 2004 another employee of Epstein’s called Carolyn to schedule such appointments. In order for the Government to satisfy this element, it is not necessary for the Government to prove that Ms. Maxwell committed the overt act. It is sufficient for the Government to show that any of the members of the conspiracy knowingly committed some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Further, the overt act need not be one that is alleged in the Indictment. Rather, it can be any overt act that is substantially similar to those acts alleged in the Indictment, if you are convinced that the act occurred while the conspiracy was still in existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In addition, you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the conspirators. As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that least one of the overt acts in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate. Put simply: you may not convict the Defendant on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate’s testimony or an overt act involving Kate. You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated. 51 DOJ-OGR-00008508