DOJ-OGR-00009612.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document621 Filed 02/25/22 Page50of51 another’s transportation across state lines for purposes of prostitution violates § 2421”); United States v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2004) (“A defendant will be deemed to have ‘transported’ an individual under Section 2421 where the evidence shows that the defendant personally . . . performed the proscribed act of transporting.”). But the jury could also have convicted the defendant by concluding that Epstein transported Jane, as he undoubtedly did by transporting her on his private jet, and that the defendant aided and abetted that transportation by grooming Jane, accompanying her on the plane, and participating in the abuse once she arrived in New York. Finally, the record contains ample evidence for the jury to convict on Counts Five and Six. Carolyn’s testimony, corroborated by testimony from Shawn and physical evidence including message pads, showed that the defendant knew that Carolyn was a minor and made phone calls to arrange for Carolyn to engage in sex acts with Epstein in exchange for money. That is sufficient for Count Six. And the evidence showed that the defendant conspired with Epstein to traffic Carolyn and other minors for sex, including evidence that the defendant personally recruited Virginia while she was a minor. That is sufficient for Count Five. The defense at trial focused largely on the credibility of the victims who testified against the defendant. Now that the jury has convicted on five counts, and in a posture in which the Court must defer to the jury’s evaluation of the witnesses and take all inferences in favor of the Government, those arguments are not availing. The evidence at trial is more than sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict. 49 DOJ-OGR-00009612