DOJ-OGR-00008933.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document600- Filed 02/11/22 Page 9of37 MS. MOE: That’s correct, your Honor. THE COURT: So [Ms. Maxwell] couldn’t be convicted with respect to that count [based solely on Kate’s testimony]. MS. MOE: That’s correct, your Honor. 11/1/2021 Tr. 67:15-68:19. Asa result, the Court agreed, over the objection of the government, to give the jury a limiting instruction before the start of Kate’s testimony which stated, among other things, that “any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not ‘illegal sexual activity’ as the government has charged in the indictment.” Tr. 1167:23-1168:2. The Court also gave a similar limiting instruction before Annie Farmer’s testimony because she testified about sexual contact in New Mexico, which could not have violated New York law. Tr. 2048:22- 2049:1. Similarly, when the parties submitted their proposed joint requests to charge, the defense requested that the instructions for the substantive Mann Act counts specify that the government must prove that Jane traveled “from Florida to New York, as charged in the Indictment,” as opposed to simply that Jane traveled “in interstate commerce.” Dkt. 410-1 at 19. The defense highlighted that the addition was necessary because it was expected that Jane would testify “about traveling to, among other places, Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico” and “the elements should make clear that the relevant travel for purposes of Count Two is travel from Florida to New York, as alleged in the $2 Indictment.” Jd. The government objected to the addition, stating it was unnecessary because travel to New York was already in the “to wit” clause of the Indictment and that “there [was] no need to include words like ‘travel from Florida to New York’ ... to avoid any suggestion of a variance.” Tr. 2759:12-2760:9. The Court agreed with the government. The final jury charge did not specifically mention travel “to New York” and DOJ-OGR-00008933