DOJ-OGR-00005835.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 52 of 84

and knew that Epstein used massage to initiate sexual contact with minor girls. Minor Victim-3’s
testimony shows the defendant’s intent, through her acts befriending Minor Victim-3, encouraging
Minor Victim-3 to provide Epstein massages, and asking Minor Victim-3 to find other girls. And
it shows the defendant’s specific modus operandi of the conspiracies in the Indictment. For these
and the other reasons described above, Minor Victim-3’s testimony easily satisfies Rule 404(b)’s
requirements. Evidence of other acts involving the grooming or abuse of minor victims is regularly
admitted for similar purposes in cases where charges allege sexual activity with minors. See, e.g.,
United States v. Vickers, 708 F. App’x 732, 737 (2d Cir. 2017) (“As to the testimony concerning
Vickers’ ‘grooming’ of his victims, we conclude that such evidence was admissible even under
Rule 404(b), because it was probative of Vickers’ knowledge of how to secure adolescent boys’
trust so that he could sexually abuse them. We identify no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
decision to admit all of the challenged testimony [regarding uncharged acts of sexual abuse] under
Rule 403.”); United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App’x 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming
admission pursuant to Rule 404(b) of defendant’s “e-mail responses to the Craigslist
advertisements” for erotic services because the e-mails “were relevant to his knowledge and intent,
because he wrote those emails to girls he knew could be minors (he enthusiastically indicated that
girls younger than 18 are acceptable) and his e-mails showed his interest in actual sexual
conduct”); United States v. Brand, No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.
12, 2005) (admitting “evidence that Brand exhibited an interest in child erotica and child
pornography on the internet in the period leading up to the charged conduct” under Rule 404(b)

51

DOJ-OGR-00005835