DOJ-OGR-00005495.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 40 of 69

B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New York Investigation

1. Applicable Law

The Supreme Court has recognized that it is entirely proper for the defense to explore and challenge "the thoroughness and even the good faith of the [government’s] investigation." Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 445 (1995). For example, the defense may elicit evidence and argue that the government’s disregard for inconsistencies in the evidence shows a willingness to accept allegations against the defendant without carefully and critically evaluating their veracity or seeking other corroborating evidence, which calls into question the integrity of the investigation. Id. at 445, 448 (the police’s acceptance of main witness’ statements, which were "replete with inconsistencies," revealed a "remarkably uncritical attitude" on the part of the police which "undermine[d] the ... integrity of the investigation"). Similarly, the defense may attack the government’s investigation for its poor quality and lack of thoroughness, including its failure to corroborate key witness testimony. See Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593, 613 (10th Cir. 1986). For all of these reasons and others, the defense may "attack[] the reliability of the investigation" and even "the decision to charge the defendant." Kyles, 514 U.S. at 446; see also id. (citing Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613 ("A common trial tactic of defense lawyers is to discredit the caliber of the investigation or the decision to charge the defendant[.]") and Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1042 (5th Cir. 1985) (exculpatory evidence "carried within it the potential ... for the ... discrediting ... of the police methods employed in assembling the case")).

2. Discussion

Here, the NPA, the government’s prior charging decisions, and the death of Jeffrey Epstein are all relevant and admissible to allow Ms. Maxwell to challenge the "thoroughness"

32

DOJ-OGR-00005495