DOJ-OGR-00009603.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 41 of 51

inquired about Epstein’s residences in an effort to cast doubt on Jane’s recollections of events. In
addition, the defendant listed as a defense witness one employee who worked for Epstein in his
New York residence at East 71st Street in the mid-1990s, but tellingly elected to not call that
witness. (Def. Dec. 14, 2021 Letter to Court). The defendant also cites the absence of Sally
Markham, claiming that she “could have testified that the household manual [Government Exhibit
606] was not created by Ms. Maxwell, but by another individual known as ‘the Countess,’ whom
Epstein brought in to ‘professionalize’ his staff.” (Def. Mot. at 30). The defendant conveniently
ignores Alessi’s testimony about the manual (Tr. 807-09) and Government Exhibit 424, an email
chain in which the defendant and Markham discussed the household manual, which made
abundantly clear that the defendant was involved in developing the manual. The defendant’s bald
assertions about Markham’s testimony are speculative and belied by the trial record. Finally, the
defendant’s musings about what Fontanilla “could have testified” about (Def. Mot. at 30)—the
details of which are sparse—do not “demonstrate a substantial, actual prejudice to [her] ability to
defend [herself].” Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657. Even assuming that Fontanilla would have testified
as the defendant now contends, such testimony would also have no bearing on whether the abuse,
in fact, occurred.

In sum, the defendant “fail[s] to identify what [these] witnesses would have attested to had
the case been brought sooner; [she] fail[s] to substantiate the proposition that the testimony would
have been favorable to [her]; and [she] fail[s] to provide any proof to support [her] claims of actual
and substantial prejudice.” United States v. Berry, No. 20 Cr. 84 (AJN), 2021 WL 2665585, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2021). “Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the [defendant] had

40

DOJ-OGR-00009603