DOJ-OGR-00001191.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103-2 Filed 12/28/20 Page 6 of 15

892-93 (8th Cir. 1985) (“The legal standard required by the [Bail Reform] Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees.”). Under, the Bail Reform Act, a defendant must be released unless there are “no conditions” that would reasonably assure her presence. Here, the proposed package satisfies the actual governing standard, and the Court should grant bail.

ARGUMENT

I. The Government Concedes that Its Case Relies Almost Exclusively on the Testimony of Three Witnesses

In evaluating the strength of the government’s case in its prior ruling, the Court relied on the government’s proffer that the testimony of the three accusers would be corroborated by “significant contemporaneous documentary evidence.” (Tr. 82 (emphasis added)). The government now expressly retreats from this position. It is abundantly clear from the government’s response that it has no “significant contemporaneous documentary evidence”—in fact, it has virtually no documentary corroboration at all—and that its case against Ms. Maxwell is based almost exclusively on the recollections of the three accusers, who remain unidentified, concerning events that took place over 25 years ago. Moreover, the government offers no specificity about when within the four-year period of the charged conspiracy the alleged incidents of abuse took place. This, alone, is grounds for the Court to reconsider its prior ruling.

The few examples of documentary corroboration referenced by the government—which are the same examples that the government touted at the initial bail hearing—pertain to Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell. The government concedes that [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED] (Gov. Mem. at 11 (emphasis added)). The government further states that [REDACTED]
[REDACTED] (Id.
(emphasis added)). The strength of the government’s case against Jeffrey Epstein is not at issue

2

DOJ-OGR-00001191