Event Details

This legal document is a filing by the defense in the case against Ms. Maxwell, arguing against the government's motion to preclude evidence related to its motives for prosecution. The defense asserts its right to present evidence about the timing of the charges against Maxwell in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 death, not to claim 'vindictive prosecution,' but to challenge the thoroughness and reliability of the government's investigation. The defense argues that the government's motion is an overreach and an attempt to force the disclosure of their trial strategy.

This document is page 59 of a court filing (Document 382) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues against the government's motion to exclude evidence, asserting that they have the right to reference evidence in opening statements if they have a good-faith belief it is admissible. Specifically, the defense intends to introduce evidence showing that Jeffrey Epstein abused many victims without Maxwell's knowledge or participation, arguing this is relevant to refuting the conspiracy charge, while the government attempts to characterize this as inadmissible 'good acts' or 'propensity' evidence.

This document is page 64 of a legal filing (Document 382) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues against government motions to exclude evidence regarding Maxwell's 'charitable works' and 'family history,' suggesting these may become relevant if the government opens those topics. Section X argues strongly against the government's request to preview the defense's evidence, using the metaphor of having 'hands tied behind their back and their mouths duct-taped,' while noting that accusers are testifying under anonymity.

This is page 65 of 69 from a court filing (Document 382) in the case of USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on October 29, 2021. The defense argues that the burden of proof lies solely with the government and criticizes the prosecution's concerns about jury confusion. Specifically, under Section XI, the defense asserts that Maxwell was the 'prevailing party' in a previous civil litigation based on the same facts, a point the government seemingly disputes.