DOJ-OGR-00009603.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 41of51 inquired about Epstein’s residences in an effort to cast doubt on Jane’s recollections of events. In addition, the defendant listed as a defense witness one employee who worked for Epstein in his New York residence at East 71“ Street in the mid-1990s, but tellingly elected to not call that witness. (Def. Dec. 14, 2021 Letter to Court). The defendant also cites the absence of Sally Markham, claiming that she “could have testified that the household manual [Government Exhibit 606] was not created by Ms. Maxwell, but by another individual known as ‘the Countess,’ whom Epstein brought in to ‘professionalize’ his staff.” (Def. Mot. at 30). The defendant conveniently ignores Alessi’s testimony about the manual (Tr. 807-09) and Government Exhibit 424, an email chain in which the defendant and Markham discussed the household manual, which made abundantly clear that the defendant was involved in developing the manual. The defendant’s bald assertions about Markham’s testimony are speculative and belied by the trial record. Finally, the defendant’s musings about what Fontanilla “could have testified” about (Def. Mot. at 30)—the details of which are sparse—do not “demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to [her] ability to defend [herself].” Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657. Even assuming that Fontanilla would have testified as the defendant now contends, such testimony would also have no bearing on whether the abuse, in fact, occurred. In sum, the defendant “fail[s] to identify what [these] witnesses would have attested to had the case been brought sooner; [she] fail[s] to substantiate the proposition that the testimony would have been favorable to [her]; and [she] fail[s] to provide any proof to support [her] claims of actual and substantial prejudice.” United States v. Berry, No. 20 Cr. 84 (AJN), 2021 WL 2665585, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2021). “Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the [defendant] had 40 DOJ-OGR-00009603