DOJ-OGR-00001797.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 64 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 6

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
October 14, 2020
Page 3

B. Discussion

1. The Materials Are Subject to Disclosure Under Brady Because They Refute the Government’s Theory of the Charged Crimes

The government states that, as part of its “broader investigation into Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors,” it interviewed “dozens” of alleged victims of Epstein’s sexual abuse and obtained sensitive documents and photographs from certain alleged victims who claim they were assaulted after 1997 – i.e., after the end of the time period charged in Counts One through Four of the superseding indictment (the “Indictment”). (Dkt. 60 at 2). Stated differently, the government has interviewed and collected evidence from numerous witnesses who have never asserted that Ms. Maxwell participated in Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse, or “groomed” them for Epstein, or had anything whatsoever to do with any episode of sexual abuse they may have experienced. Although the government represents that these women were sexually abused by Epstein after the time period charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment, this evidence is still fundamentally inconsistent with the government’s theory that Ms. Maxwell was Epstein’s “madam” and the principal facilitator of his sexual abuse scheme.

Furthermore, this evidence directly contradicts the government’s theory of the perjury counts. The government insists that the Materials are irrelevant to the charges in the Indictment because they relate to instances of sexual abuse that took place after 1997, and therefore “post-date the time period charged in the Indictment.” (Dkt. 60 at 2). That is incorrect. The government forgets that it chose to put at issue Epstein’s sexual abuse that occurred after 1997 when it included the perjury counts in the Indictment.

The perjury counts stem from a defamation suit brought against Ms. Maxwell in 2015 by one of Epstein’s alleged victims (“Accuser-1”). In December 2014, Accuser-1 filed a motion to join a lawsuit challenging the validity of Epstein’s Non-Prosecution Agreement executed in 2007. Accuser-1’s motion “described Maxwell’s role as one of the main women who Epstein used to procure under-aged girls for sexual activities and a primary co-conspirator and participant in his sexual abuse and sex trafficking scheme.” ([Accuser-1] v. Maxwell, 15-CV-07433 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 1 at ¶ 27). Ms. Maxwell publicly denied Accuser-1’s allegations, claiming that they were untrue. Accuser-1, in turn, claimed that these statements were defamatory and sued Ms. Maxwell.

Counts Five and Six allege that Ms. Maxwell lied at two different depositions in this case. The scope of these depositions was not limited to the 1994-1997 timeframe. On the contrary, Ms. Maxwell was asked questions about, among other things, her knowledge of Epstein’s sexual activities in general. Whether Ms. Maxwell knew about Epstein’s sexual abuse after 1997 is therefore directly relevant to whether she lied at these depositions.

DOJ-OGR-00001797