Document 20-50086

was arrested and has shown no signs of abating. Indeed, in the three months after her arrest, Ms. Maxwell was the subject of over 6,500 national media articles. That exceeds the number of articles that mentioned such high-profile defendants as Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera, and Keith Raniere in the 90-day period following their arrests, combined. The media coverage has ruthlessly vilified her and prejudged her guilt, and has exposed her family and friends to harassment, physical threats, and other negative consequences. But Ms. Maxwell is not the person the media has portrayed her to be; far from it. And her response to these unfounded allegations remains unchanged: she resolutely and vehemently denies them, and she is steadfastly committed to remaining in this country, where she has been since Epstein's arrest in July 2019, to fight them in court. For Ms. Maxwell to flee, she would have to abandon her spouse . She will not risk destroying the lives and financial well-being of those she holds most dear to live as a fugitive during a worldwide pandemic. In fact, every action Ms. Maxwell has taken from the time of Epstein's arrest up to the time of the first bail hearing was designed to protect her spouse from harassment, economic harm, and physical danger. Ms. Maxwell wants to stay in New York and have her day in court so that she can clear her name and return to her family. Justice is not reserved solely for the victims of a crime; it is for the accused as well. Here, justice would be served by granting Ms. Maxwell bail under the comprehensive conditions we propose. The alternative is continued detention under oppressive conditions that are unprecedented for a non-violent pretrial detainee, which significantly impair her ability to participate in her defense and prepare for trial and which jeopardize her physical health and psychological wellbeing. --- PAGE BREAK --- Case: 20-50086 Document: 39 Filed: 06/23/20 Page: 7 of 45 ARGUMENT I. Reconsideration of the Court's Bail Decision is Appropriate Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) A prior determination that a defendant should not be released on bail does not preclude the Court from reconsidering its decision in light of new information. To the contrary, a bail hearing may be reopened . . . at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Courts have relied on § 3142(f) in revisiting bail determinations where the defendant presents material testimony or documentary evidence that was not available to her at the time of the initial hearing, even if the underlying facts might have been within the defendant's knowledge. For example, in United States v. Ward, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1999), the court granted the defendant's request to reopen his bail hearing to present evidence of his immediate family's willingness to act as sureties for his release. Id. at 1207. The court held that although "his immediate family and relatives were obviously known to" the defendant at the time of his arrest, his inability to contact them and secure their appearance at his initial bail hearing justified reconsideration. Id. Courts also have found § 3142(f) satisfied where there is new information regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence or the nature and seriousness of the alleged offense—facts generally not known to a criminal defendant at the time of the initial hearing—particularly where the evidence undermines the government's prior representations to the Court regarding the strength of its case. See, e.g., United States v. Stephens, 447 F. Supp. 3d 63, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) 7 DOJ-OGR-00020027 --- PAGE BREAK --- (Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government's case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M. 2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense that defendant "could have not have martialed" in the 17 days between his indictment and the original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when the change was within the defendant's control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing). In addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision. "[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing." United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision"). Here, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7 million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the Court's consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application. It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of § 3142(f): that it have a "material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release --- PAGE BREAK --- It is very obvious that they love her deeply. They are an incredibly strong and close family unit."); Ex. F ("I joined a large family event hosted by Ghislaine and her husband in which she was very hospitable and obviously very much at home and in love."); Ex. C ("[Ghislaine] has called the United States her home for almost 30 years. She has deep affective family ties here in this country Most of all, her own husband are here."); Ex. B ("I wish ... to attest to the loving relationship she has with her husband which I have personally witnessed on many different occasions."). Indeed, it was because of Ms. Maxwell's devotion to her family, and her desire to protect her spouse from harassment and threats, that she went forward at the first bail hearing without relying on her spouse as a co-signer, even though she knew his support would greatly strengthen her bail application. As her spouse writes: I did not initially come forward as a co-signer of her first bail application ... [because we were] trying to protect from ferocious media aggression.... (Ex. A ¶ 13). Her spouse is coming forward now because he is deeply concerned about how she is being treated in the MDC and because the terrible consequences that he and Ms. Maxwell were trying to prevent have already occurred. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11). Ms. Maxwell's spouse fully supports her and is prepared to put up all of his and Ms. Maxwell's assets to ensure that Ms. Maxwell abides by the strict conditions proposed. He 12 DOJ-OGR-00020032 --- PAGE BREAK --- has agreed to co-sign Ms. Maxwell's $22.5 million bond and to post all three properties he owns—all located in the United States and worth a total of approximately $8 million combined as security for the bond. As the financial report discussed later in this submission makes clear, $22.5 million represents all of the current assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse. One of the properties is the family home where Ms. Maxwell, her spouse, [REDACTED] have lived together [REDACTED]. If Ms. Maxwell were to violate her bail conditions, which she has no intention of doing, she would be leaving her spouse [REDACTED] with virtually nothing. It is unfathomable that Ms. Maxwell would abandon her family, which she has fought so hard to protect, under these circumstances. 2. A Number of Ms. Maxwell's Family and Friends, and the Security Company Protecting Her, Are Prepared to Sign Significant Bonds In addition to her spouse, a number of Ms. Maxwell's family members and friends, many of whom are U.S. citizens and residents, have volunteered to step forward as co-signers. These sureties, as well as the others who have written letters on Ms. Maxwell's behalf, know that Ms. Maxwell has never run from a difficult situation and will not do so now. To show the depth of their support and their confidence that Ms. Maxwell will abide by her bail conditions and remain in this country, the sureties have agreed to sign separate bonds for Ms. Maxwell in amounts that are significant and meaningful to them, and each would cause severe financial hardship if she were to violate her bail conditions. For example, one surety, who is a U.S. citizen and resident, will post the only property she owns. This property is worth approximately $1.5 million and is her "only nest-egg for retirement." (Ex. C). She writes: I do not have any other savings and it would be completely devastating financially and in every way to my own family were the house to be taken over by the Government due to a breach of [REDACTED] bail conditions. --- PAGE BREAK --- Case#: 20-50086 Dkt# 390 Filed: 06/03/20 PagelD#: 6326/045 2020, other than daily living expenditures for her family and for professional services in the defense of Ms. Maxwell from the charges she faces. (Id. ¶ 16). The Macalvins report confirms that Ms. Maxwell disclosed all of her foreign bank accounts in FBAR filings and properly disclosed her bank accounts, investments and other assets in her U.S. tax filings at all times. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 30). The report also explains that the transfers of funds between various accounts in the past few years, which the government highlighted in their initial bail submission (Dkt. 22 at 11-12), reflected movements between banks triggered by the closure of one banking relationship and the opening of new relationship, as well movements of cash maturing on deposit and other financial investments. (Id. ¶ 18). At the last bail hearing, the government suggested that Ms. Maxwell's finances were "opaque" and that she potentially had "significant [] undetermined and undisclosed wealth." (Tr. 27; Dkt. 22 at 11-12). The Macalvins report lifts this cloud of unjustified intrigue and provides a straightforward answer: Ms. Maxwell and her spouse currently have assets worth approximately $22.5 million.6 Accordingly, the proposed bond amount of $22.5 million represents all of the couple's current assets. The report further shows that Ms. Maxwell has no undisclosed wealth and is not hiding assets overseas. To the contrary, for the past several years, Ms. Maxwell and her husband have disclosed their foreign assets by submitting FBAR filings regarding their 6 We have redacted the name of the bank where Although the balance of the account is fully disclosed in the Macalvins report, we felt it necessary to redact the name of the bank because We will, of course, follow the Court's guidance on how to proceed and provide the name of the bank to the Court and the government, if required. In that event, we ask that the Court establish guidelines limiting what the government can do with the information. 17 DOJ-OGR-00020037 --- PAGE BREAK --- 2. Ms. Maxwell's Counsel Was in Regular Contact with the Government Prior to Her Arrest At no time, however, did Ms. Maxwell intend to flee or hide from the government, as the government argued at the last bail hearing. In fact, her intent was exactly the opposite. As her spouse's letter makes clear, after spending a few months away , Ms. Maxwell moved so that she could be within driving distance of the prosecutors in New York in case they wished to speak to her. (Ex. A ¶ 12) (“[Ghislain] was adamant to not only stay in the United States to fight the smears against her, but to be within driving distance of New York.”). Contrary to the impression given by the government, Ms. Maxwell was not “changing locations on multiple occasions” as if she were a fugitive from justice. (Tr. 87). After Ms. Maxwell moved into the house in New Hampshire in December 2019, she remained there continuously for approximately seven months until her arrest. (See Ex. B) (“[S]he was finally able to locate a place where she could not be moving around constantly and collect herself to fight for her life and to clear her name.”). Ms. Maxwell, through her counsel, was also in regular contact with the government from the moment of Epstein's arrest up the time of her own arrest, as would be customary in such situations. Defense counsel corresponded by email, spoke on the phone, or had in-person meetings with government in July, August, September, and October 2019, and also in January and March 2020. The timeline attached to this submission illustrates the extent of these contacts. (Ex. R). Defense counsel also requested an opportunity to be heard in the event that the government was considering any charging decisions against Ms. Maxwell. We were never given that opportunity, which is uncharacteristic for the Southern District of New York, nor were we given any notice of her impending arrest. --- PAGE BREAK --- The government argued to the Court that defense counsel's contact with the prosecutors in the months leading up to Ms. Maxwell's arrest prove little about her intent to stay in this country simply because she never disclosed her location. (Tr. 26). While Ms. Maxwell was understandably not in the habit of volunteering her whereabouts given the intensity of the press attention, her counsel would have provided that information had the government asked for it. The government never did. 3. Ms. Maxwell Did Not Try to Avoid Arrest, Nor Was She "Good At" Hiding Similarly, had the government reached out to defense counsel before Ms. Maxwell's arrest, we would have willingly arranged for her self-surrender. We were never given that chance. Instead, the government arrested her in a totally unnecessary early morning raid with multiple federal agents at her residence in New Hampshire, on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein, creating the misimpression that Ms. Maxwell was hiding from them. That is simply not the case. The government argued that the events of Ms. Maxwell's arrest—in particular, that she moved herself into an interior room when the officers approached the house and that they found a cell phone wrapped in tin foil—evidence an attempt to evade law enforcement. (Tr. 32-34). As we previously explained to the Court, Ms. Maxwell was protecting herself from the press, not trying to avoid arrest. (Tr. 54-57). Since the hearing, we have obtained the accompanying statement from [REDACTED] the head of the security company guarding Ms. Maxwell at the time of her arrest, which was not available at the time of the initial hearing. (Ex. S). [REDACTED] statement demonstrates that Ms. Maxwell was not avoiding arrest, but was following an agreed-upon procedure to protect herself in the event of a potential threat to her safety or security. 23 DOJ-OGR-00020043 --- PAGE BREAK --- country. (Dkt. 18 at 12-14, Tr. 52-53). It is even more unfounded in light of the daily avalanche of media coverage of Ms. Maxwell. She is now one of the most recognizable and infamous people in the world. She is being pursued relentlessly by the press, which would no doubt be camped out by her front door every day if she were granted bail. The notion that Ms. Maxwell could somehow flee to a foreign country during a worldwide pandemic (presumably, by plane), while being supervised and monitored 24 hours a day and with the eyes of the global press corps on her every minute, without being caught, is absurd. To the extent the Court is concerned that her calculus may have changed since her arrest because the threat of prosecution has now crystallized into concrete charges (Tr. 85-86), Ms. Maxwell has addressed that concern head-on—she will execute irrevocable waivers of her right to contest extradition in both the United Kingdom and France. (Ex. T). These waivers demonstrate Ms. Maxwell's firm commitment to remain in this country to face the charges against her. Moreover, as discussed more fully in the attached expert reports, because of these waivers and other factors, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Maxwell would be able to successfully resist an extradition request from the United States to either country, in the extremely unlikely event she were to violate her bail conditions. (Exs. U-V). Moreover, any extradition proceedings in either country would be resolved promptly. (Id.). Courts have addressed concerns about a defendant's ties to a foreign state that enforces extradition waivers by requiring the defendant to execute such a waiver as a condition of release—including in cases where the defendants, unlike Ms. Maxwell, were not U.S. citizens. See, e.g., United States v. Cirillo, No. 99-1514, 1999 WL 1456536, at *2 (3d Cir. July 13, 1999) (vacating district court's detention order and reinstating magistrate's release order, which required foreign citizen and resident to sign an "irrevocable waiver of extradition" as a condition --- PAGE BREAK --- of release); United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) (ordering each of two defendants to "execute and file with the Clerk of the Court a waiver of extradition applicable to any nation or foreign territory in which he may be found as a condition of his continued release"); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2004) (requiring Israeli citizen who lived in South Africa and had "no ties to the United States" to sign waiver of rights not to be extradited under Israeli and South African extradition treaties with United States); United States v. Chen, 820 F. Supp. 1205, 1212 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (ordering as a condition of release that defendants "execute waivers of challenges to extradition from any nation where they may be found"). Moreover, a defendant's waiver of the right to appeal an extradition order has been recognized as an indication of the defendant's intent not to flee. See, e.g., United States v. Khashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (Judge Keenan found defendant's extradition appeal waiver "manifests an intention to remain here and face the charges against him"). In response to the government's assertions, Ms. Maxwell has obtained the accompanying reports of experts in United Kingdom and French extradition law, who have analyzed the likelihood that Ms. Maxwell, in the event she were to flee to the United Kingdom or France, would be able to resist extradition to the United States after having executed a waiver of her right to do so. Both have concluded that it is highly unlikely that she would be able to resist extradition successfully. United Kingdom. With respect to the United Kingdom, submitted herewith is a report from David Perry ("Perry Rep."), a U.K. barrister who is widely considered one of the United Kingdom's preeminent extradition practitioners. (Perry Rep. Annex B ¶ 2.1) (attached as Exhibit U). Mr. Perry has acted on behalf of many overseas governments in extradition proceedings; has --- PAGE BREAK --- 11-12). Ms. Maxwell is not obligated to rebut every theoretical possibility that the government might raise that may contribute to a potential flight risk in order to be granted bail. That is not the standard. Cf. United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 888 n.4, 892-93 (8th Cir. 1985) (“The legal standard required by the [Bail Reform] Act is one of reasonable assurances, not absolute guarantees.”). Ms. Maxwell has no intention of fleeing. If she did, then under the proposed bail conditions she would lose everything and destroy the family she has been fighting so hard to protect since Epstein’s arrest. Ms. Maxwell will not do that, and should be granted bail. G. The Alternative to Bail Is Confinement Under Oppressive Conditions that Impact Ms. Maxwell’s Health and Ability to Prepare Her Defense Granting bail to Ms. Maxwell is all the more appropriate and necessary because the past few months have shown that Ms. Maxwell cannot adequately participate in her defense and prepare for trial from the inside the MDC. The alternative to release is her continued confinement under extraordinarily onerous conditions that are not only unjust and punitive, but also meaningfully impair Ms. Maxwell’s ability to review the voluminous discovery produced by the government and to communicate effectively with counsel to prepare her defense. Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirety of her detention — now over five months — in de facto solitary confinement, under conditions that rival those used at USP Florence ADMAX to supervise the most dangerous inmates in the federal system and are tantamount to imprisonment as a defendant convicted of capital murder and incarcerated on death row. In fact, multiple wardens and interim wardens have remarked that in their collective years of experience they have never seen anything like her current regime. The restrictive regulations to which Ms. Maxwell is subjected are not reasonably related to a legitimate goal to ensure the security of Ms. Maxwell or the MDC. Instead, it seems clear that the overly restrictive conditions are an