DOJ-OGR-00001808.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 66 Filed 10/23/20 Page 4 of 7

The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
October 23, 2020
Page 4

investigation. The substance of this information is critical to the defense because it negates the entire theory of prosecution.

The Government has not provided any information about the genesis of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) that the Government entered into with Jeffrey Epstein in 2007. This is information will form the basis of substantial defense motions and argument.

According to recent press reports, lawyers for the accusers met with the Government in 2016 during the pendency of ongoing civil litigation against Ms. Maxwell in an effort to convince the Government to open an investigation of Ms. Maxwell – an effort which did not ultimately succeed. Neither the fact of these meetings nor the content has been disclosed. This is significant exculpatory information that is needed to investigate, prepare motions, and defend at trial.⁶

We assume that many of the potential Government trial witnesses either participated or benefited from Epstein’s NPA because the plea agreement provided for a mechanism where the claimants were paid money by Epstein, who could not challenge liability, only the amount. The Government presumably has this information which is unquestionably favorable evidence which “includes not only evidence that tends to exculpate the accused, but also evidence that is useful to impeach the credibility of a government witness....” United States v. Teman, No. 19-CR-696 (PAE), 2020 WL 3034034, at *43 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2020) (citations omitted); see also, Bagley v. Lumpkin, 798 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Librach, 520 F.2d 550, 554 (8th Cir. 1975).

The Government is the Team

In an attempt to minimize what it promised, the Government redefines who it believes is on the Team. The Government claims no responsibility for investigations into these allegations by either the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Office of the United States Attorney unless part of the Southern District of New York. This stands in stark contrast to the on-the-record assurances that it gave the Court on July 14, 2020:

“...the materials with respect to the core of the case also include prior investigative files from another investigation in the Southern District of Florida....” Tr. p. 12:10-13

“The physical files [from the Florida investigation] were shipped to New York and are at the New York F.B.I. office. They have been imaged and scanned and photographed to make sure that a comprehensive review can be conducted, and they are physically in New York so that we can have access to those files.” Id., 14:10-14

Now, the Government seeks to distance itself from its own files, which are in New York, not Florida, by arguing that they are excused from reviewing or producing information because it

⁶ Pursuant to this Court’s practice standards regarding discovery, Ms. Maxwell, on October 13, 2020, sent a detailed letter requesting the production of discovery materials under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Government has yet to respond.

DOJ-OGR-00001808