DOJ-OGR-00005837.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 54 of 84

with Epstein. When Minor Victim-3 began having sexual contact with Epstein, she was 17. The
issue at trial will be the defendant’s knowledge of Epstein’s preference for girls under the age of
18. Under federal law, there is a term for individuals under the age of 18: minors. There is nothing
inappropriate about using that term at trial.

Similarly, the phrase “sexual abuse” is accurate, and the Government should be permitted
to use it. Minor Victim-3 is expected to testify about her experiences with the defendant and
Epstein, including that she was sexually abused by Epstein numerous times. Regardless of whether
she uses the term “sexual abuse,” her testimony will capture her experience—that she was
exploited sexually. And it is fair for the Government to argue that those acts were sexual abuse.
The defense argues that the phrase “sexual abuse” is misleading because it suggests to the jury that
Epstein engaged in “criminal sexual activity” with Minor Victim-3. (Def. Mot. 4 at 14-15). To
justify that proposition, the defense cites a single Supreme Court case in which (1) the parties were
engaged in the task of statutory interpretation, not argument in a jury address or description of a
victim’s lived experience, and (2) the Court rejected that proposed definition of “sexual abuse of
a minor” as “flatly inconsistent with the definition of sexual abuse contained in th[at] very
dictionary.” Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017). Again, the Government
is confident that the Court will properly instruct the jury regarding the elements of the crimes in
the Indictment.

Finally, there is no basis for an instruction about United Kingdom law. The defense has
demonstrated no unfair prejudice that might warrant a limiting instruction, and the defense’s
proposed instructions would only confuse the jury. The jury will be instructed to consider only

53

DOJ-OGR-00005837