DOJ-OGR-00009600.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 38of51 Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4-5 (death of a defense witness and defendant’s own memory issues insufficient prejudice). 2. Discussion The defendant contends that she has suffered substantial prejudice due to the death of certain witnesses and the unavailability of certain documentary records. (Def. Mot. at 25-30). The defendant’s speculative claims fail to establish substantial and actual prejudice caused by the allegedly excessive pre-indictment delay. See Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06. The defendant claims she has suffered substantial prejudice as a result of pre-indictment delay due to the unavailability of (1) Alberto Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects who worked for Epstein; (2) Sally Markham, “a property manager hired to help run Epstein’s properties in the early 2000s”; and (3) Lynn Fontanilla, the live-in housekeeper in Epstein’s New York townhouse. (Def. Mot. at 29-30).? The defendant’s speculative claims of prejudice do not withstand scrutiny. First, the fact that certain deceased witnesses cannot testify does not compel a finding of actual prejudice. “TUJnavailable witnesses are inherent in any delay, even if justifiable. To merit dismissal a defendant must demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to his ability to defend himself.” United ? The defendant also reasserts that the witnesses “already mentioned in [her] previous filings”— namely, Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein’s mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey—‘could have provided evidence contradicting the government’s proof.” (Def. Mot. at 29). The Court already rejected the defendant’s claims of actual prejudice as to these witnesses, finding that the defendant “provide[d] no indication of what many of these potential witnesses might have testified to” and noting “serious doubts under all of the relevant circumstances that a jury would have found testimony from Epstein credible even if he had waived his right against self-incrimination and testified on her behalf.” (Dkt. No. 207 at 18). The defendant offers no new arguments as to these witnesses, and her claims certainly fare no better after the trial in this matter. 37 DOJ-OGR-00009600