DOJ-OGR-00009591.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 29 of 51

Here, not only are Counts Three and Five predicated on different statutes, but the legal distinctions between these counts are substantial. First, these counts had a different age of consent, as the age of consent for Count Three was seventeen (by operation of New York law), whereas the age of consent for the conspiracy charged in Count Five was eighteen. Second, the conspiracies had a different geographic locus as a result of the different legal objects of the conspiracies: Count Three concerned travel to New York, whereas Count Five did not require interstate transportation, and concerned acts mostly in Florida. Third, the scheme charged in Count Three concerned transporting minors to Epstein’s residence in New York for sexual abuse in violation of state law, whereas Count Five concerned commercial sex acts with victims, who were paid to participate in so-called “massage” appointments. Indeed, the Government legally could not have charged these conspiracies together, because the Trafficking Victims Protection Act was not enacted until 2000, years after the defendant and Epstein victimized Jane and Annie Farmer, as charged in the Mann Act conspiracy. Moreover, the proof at trial established that Virginia Roberts was a victim of the sex trafficking conspiracy at age 17, when flight records⁶ established that she travelled with the defendant and Epstein, but that conduct could not have been charged under the Mann Act conspiracies, which had a lower age of consent. In short, Counts Three and Five charged categorically different crimes.

_____________________

⁶ See Tr. at 1855-57 (testimony of pilot David Rodgers regarding Virginia Roberts as a passenger on flight logs); Government Exhibit 662 (flight records); Government Exhibit 14 (birth certificate of Virginia Roberts).

28

DOJ-OGR-00009591