DOJ-OGR-00009578.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page16of51 if they found that Ms. Maxwell had intended Jane to engage in sexual activity in New Mexico.” (Def. Mot. at 13). The Court was right to reject these arguments during trial. First, the meaning of the jury note is entirely ambiguous. It is at a minimum unclear (1) which flights are referenced in the note, (2) where the sexual activity was intended to occur, and (3) what question is posed by the note. The defendant argues that the note’s mention of a flight to New Mexico is a specific reference to a 1997 flight from New York to New Mexico captured in the flight logs that lists both the defendant and Jane as passengers. (See Def. Mot. at 14 (citing GX 662-R at 48)). The jury may have considered that flight, or some other flight. (See, e.g., GX 662 at 51 (flight to Santa Fe from Palm Beach with Epstein, the defendant, and “1 female”); Tr. 316 (testimony from Jane that she sometimes traveled on commercial flights)). If it was that flight, the subsequent flight record departing Santa Fe did not include the defendant or Jane (see GX 662 at 48), providing no information about the flight that the defendant thinks was the focus of the jury’s attention. And to the extent it was a “return” trip, the origin of the trip to New Mexico was New York, so the jury could easily have inferred that the “return” trip was also to New York. That is, the defendant may or may not be right about which flight the jury had in mind. And ifthe jury was asking about this trip, the jury could well have been asking about a flight to New York—which, if the defendant arranged, could have been highly significant and proper evidence of guilt. The defendant’s presumption that the jury was focused on this particular trip and specifically on a return flight to Florida with no relevance to the case is mere conjecture. 15 DOJ-OGR-00009578