Document 20-cr-00330

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 72 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 23, 2020 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pursuant to the Court's Order dated August 25, 2020. (Dkt. No. 49). Over the past three months, the Government has had multiple conversations with MDC legal counsel regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement. This update is based on information provided to the Government by MDC legal during those conversations. Last week, a staff member who was assigned to work in the area of the MDC where the defendant is housed tested positive for COVID-19. In response, the MDC implemented the same quarantine protocols that apply whenever an inmate has potentially been exposed to the virus. Specifically, on November 18, 2020, the defendant was tested for COVID-19 using a rapid test, which was negative. That same day, the defendant was placed in quarantine. As with any other quarantined inmate, the defendant will remain in quarantine for fourteen days, at which point she will be tested again for COVID-19. If that test is negative, she will then be released from quarantine. To date, the defendant has not exhibited any symptoms of COVID-19. During her time in quarantine, the defendant will be housed in the same cell where she was already housed before she was placed in quarantine, and medical staff and psychology staff will continue to check on the defendant every day. Like all other MDC inmates in quarantine, the defendant will be permitted out of her cell three days per week for thirty minutes. During that time, the defendant may shower, make personal phone calls, and use the CorrLinks email system. In addition, the defendant will continue to be permitted to make legal calls every day for up to three hours per day. These calls will take place in a room where the defendant is alone and where no MDC staff can hear her communications with counsel. On November 18, 2020, the Government provided the MDC with a laptop for the defendant to use to review discovery. During quarantine, the defendant has been and will continue to be permitted to use that laptop in her isolation cell to review her discovery for thirteen hours per day, DOJ-OGR-00001343 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 258-2 Filed 02/07/21 Page 1 of 2 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 February 4, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter to provide an update regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pursuant to the Court's Order dated December 8, 2020. (Dkt. No. 92). Over the past two months, the Government has had multiple communications with MDC legal counsel regarding the defendant's conditions of confinement. This update is based on information provided to the Government by MDC legal counsel through those communications. The defendant continues to receive more time to review discovery than any other inmate at the MDC. Specifically, the defendant is permitted to review her discovery thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. During the entirety of that time, the defendant has access to a desktop computer provided by the MDC on which to review discovery. Additionally, pursuant to the Court's January 15, 2021 Order, the defendant also has access to a laptop computer provided by the Government on which to review discovery for the full thirteen hours per day, seven days per week. Also during those thirteen hours per day, the defendant may use the MDC desktop computer to send and receive emails with her attorneys. The defendant also has as much, if not more, time as any other MDC inmate to communicate with her attorneys. Due to the elevated number of COVID-19 cases within the MDC, in-person visits have been suspended since in or about December 2020. While in-person visits are suspended, the defendant has had regular video-teleconference ("VTC") calls with her counsel. In particular, the defendant has VTC calls with her counsel every weekday for three hours per call. If defense counsel requires additional time to speak with the defendant, counsel may request to schedule an additional phone call on Saturdays as needed. All of these VTCs and telephone calls take place in a room where the defendant is alone and where no MDC staff can hear her communications with counsel. The defendant's legal mail is processed in the same manner as mail for all other inmates at the MDC. All inmate mail is sent to the MDC's mail room, where every piece of mail is processed DOJ-OGR-00001357 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330 Document 118 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 8 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM 212-243-1100 · Main 917-306-6666 · Cell 888-587-4737 · Fax 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, New York 10011 bc@sternheimlaw.com April 15, 2021 Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: We write in reply to the government's April 9th letter opposing a trial continuance. The defense has been steadfastly and diligently preparing for a July 12th trial based on the original indictment, a date set on the condition that there would be no superseding indictment adding substantive charges. The recently filed superseding indictment directly contravenes that agreement and adds two new charges which vastly expand the relevant time period from a four-year period in the 1990s to an eleven-year period stretching from 1994 to 2004. These additions significantly alter the scope of the government's case and necessarily shift the focus of the defense's trial preparation. Instead of being focused on mounting a defense to the allegations of the three accusers from the 1990s, as we have been doing, the defense will now have to spend considerable time and resources investigating allegations of new conduct in a completely different time period involving numerous additional witnesses, and with all of the difficulties that COVID restrictions still place on a meaningful defense investigation. We do not want to postpone the trial but have no choice but to ask for a continuance. The government bears responsibility for this need, having filed a late-breaking superseding indictment based on a witness who has been known to the government since the Florida DOJ-OGR-00001389 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330 Document 128 Filed 02/08/21 Page 3 of 8 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM materials in the MDC. Although defense counsel have not yet been able to fully review the materials, which are voluminous, it is apparent that the witness interviews contain exculpatory or otherwise favorable information for Ms. Maxwell, which the defense has an obligation to investigate. A number of these witnesses may testify as part of the defense case. Even if defense counsel were to attempt to contact and interview only a small number of these witnesses and conduct any necessary follow-up investigation, that would still take a significant amount of time to complete. Thus, while we appreciate receiving these materials, the disclosure has not decreased the amount of time the defense will need to investigate; indeed, it has increased it. It is also disingenuous for the government to argue that because it previously provided discovery regarding the new charges no additional time is required to prepare the defense of the new indictment. When the parties were originally negotiating a discovery schedule for the original indictment, the government represented that it would be providing, in an abundance of caution, a significant amount of discovery from Epstein's seized electronic devices that contained information that it was not relying on in Ms. Maxwell's case. The government reiterated this point in its November 6, 2020 letter to the Court requesting additional time to finish producing discovery. (See Dkt. 69 at 4 ("[O]f the approximately 1.2 million documents, only a handful were specifically relied upon by the Government in the investigation that led the charges in the current indictment."). These devices contain over 2.4 million pages of material, virtually none of which pertained to the time period of the original indictment. Now that the superseding indictment has expanded the time period of the alleged conduct well into the 2000s, the 2.4 million pages that were not previously relevant are now pertinent, requiring re-review and analysis.1 1 The actual number of pages is, in fact, larger than 2.4 million. For example, the discovery from these devices included forensic Cellebrite images of several individual devices that were assigned a single Bates number. 3 DOJ-OGR-00001391 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AIN Document 2651 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 9 Page 3 defendant cannot simultaneously pursue bail in both the Second Circuit and the district court. To allow her to seek relief in both venues runs counter to the principles of judicial economy underpinning the divestiture of jurisdiction upon the filing of a notice of appeal. See Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 251.1 The Court's lack of jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion does not leave the defendant without a remedy. The defendant can withdraw her pending bail appeal to restore jurisdiction to this Court. Alternatively, the Court can follow the procedure set forth in Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that if the defendant makes a timely motion for relief "that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue." However, the defendant should not be permitted to simultaneously pursue bail in both this Court and the Second Circuit. III. The Court Should Not Reverse Its Prior Well-Reasoned and Thorough Bail Decisions Even if this Court had jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion, the motion should be denied. This Court has already twice made the determination that the defendant poses a risk of flight. In particular, the Court has found, "the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, 1 While the Government has not identified a case addressing the precise issue with which the Court is confronted, several considerations support the Government's position that the Court does not presently have jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion. In addition to the rule articulated by the Supreme Court in Griggs, in Ching v. United States, the Second Circuit found that while an appeal from the denial of a Section 2255 motion was pending, the district court could not rule on a motion to amend the Section 2255 motion. 298 F.3d 174, 180 n.5 (2d Cir. 2002) ("The district court could not rule on any motion affecting an aspect of the case that was before [the Second Circuit], including a motion to amend the motion, while that appeal was pending.") Here, too, while the defendant's appeal of the denial of the Second Bail Motion is pending, the Court should not grant the defendant's motion to reconsider that very same bail ruling. Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which governs release in a criminal case, also supports such a reading. Rule 9(b), which governs release after a judgment of conviction, provides that a "party entitled to do so may obtain review of a district-court order regarding release after a judgment of conviction by filing a notice of appeal from that order in the district court, or by filing a motion in the court of appeals if the party has already filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction." In United States v. Hochevar, 214 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000), the Second Circuit found that Rule 9(b) contemplates going to the district court first for a bail ruling after a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction is filed. Rule 9(a), which governs release before a judgment of conviction, does not say anything about going back to the district court for a new bail ruling after a notice of appeal from a prior bail ruling is filed. In addition, Rule 9(a)(2) provides that the court of appeals "must promptly determine" the pre-judgment bail appeal. Such promptness would not be necessary if defendants could go back to the district court with another bail motion while the bail appeal is pending. DOJ-OGR-00020163 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 2651 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 9 Page 4 are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, is strong; the Defendant has substantial resources and foreign ties (including citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens); and the Defendant, who lived in hiding and apart from the family to whom she now asserts important ties, has not been fully candid about her financial situation." (Dec. Op. at 2). In seeking bail for a third time, the defendant's Motion rests principally on two additional bail conditions. Neither of these conditions will reasonably assure the defendant's appearance in court, and neither outweighs all of the other factors that make this defendant an extreme flight risk. Moreover, the Court should reject as premature the defendant's assertion that her pretrial motions have somehow weakened the Government's case; those motions have not been adjudicated, and, for the reasons set forth in the Government's opposition memorandum, the defendant's motions have no merit. In short, all three of the relevant Bail Reform Act factors—the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant—continue to weigh heavily in favor of detention, and the defendant's Motion does not present any information that warrants revisiting this Court's well-reasoned and detailed prior decisions. A. Applicable Law "After a court has made an initial determination that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required, the Court may reopen the bail hearing if 'information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue' of whether pretrial detention is warranted." (Dec. Op. at 4 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)). "A court may also revisit its own decision pursuant to its inherent authority, even where the circumstances do not match § 3142(f)'s statutory text." (Id. at 5). Although courts in this Circuit have recognized that "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), generally the moving party must establish that its arguments "warrant reconsideration" by, for example, demonstrating "that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." United States v. Petrov, No. 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015). B. Discussion The defendant's Motion rests on three arguments, none of which is availing. First, the defendant offers to renounce her foreign citizenship, claiming that this eliminates the risk that she will flee from prosecution. Second, the defendant offers to place some of her assets in a monitorship with unspecified terms, and which would still leave her with substantial unrestrained assets. Third, the defendant claims that her voluminous pretrial motions have diminished the strength of the Government's case. None of these arguments is persuasive, and the Motion should be denied. DOJ-OGR-00020164 --- PAGE BREAK --- prior detention order based in part on the risks brought on by COVID-19. At the time, COVID-19 had only begun to take its devastating toll on New York, and there was no known outbreak in the prison population. Nevertheless, the Court noted that “inmates may be at a heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 should an outbreak develop,” and, based in part on this changed circumstance, ordered the defendant released. Id. Since the Court issued its opinion in Stephens, the COVID-19 risks to inmates have increased dramatically, as there have been significant outbreaks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities. In the last month alone, the number of prison inmates known to have COVID-19 has doubled to 68,000, and prison deaths tied to COVID-19 have increased by 73 percent.1 Indeed, as of July 2, 2020, nine of the ten largest known clusters of the coronavirus in the United States are in federal prisons and county jails.2 As this Court noted last month, “the ‘inability [of] individuals to socially distance, shared communal spaces, and limited access to hygiene products’ [in correctional facilities] make community spread all but unavoidable.” United States v. Williams-Bethea, No. 18-CR-78 (AJN), 2020 WL 2848098, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The risks are further enhanced by the possibility of a second wave of coronavirus cases.3 In particular, COVID-19 has begun to spread through the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where Ms. Maxwell has been housed since the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) transferred her there on July 6, 2020. According to the MDC’s statistics, as of April 3, 2020, two inmates and 1 Timothy Williams, et al., Coronavirus Cases Rise Sharply in Prisons Even as They Plateau Nationwide, N.Y. Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/us/coronavirus-inmates-prisons-jails.html (last updated June 30, 2020). 2 Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count, N.Y. Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html#clusters (last updated July 2, 2020). 3 See, e.g., Audrey Cher, WHO’s Chief Scientist Says There’s a “Very Real Risk” of a Second Wave of Coronavirus As Economies Reopen, CNBC, June 9, 2020, available at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/10/who-says-theres-real-risk-of-second-coronavirus-wave-as-economies-reopen.html. --- PAGE BREAK --- date of the amendment,1 to permit a prosecution at any point during the lifetime of the minor victim. See United States v. Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding that because Congress extended the statute of limitations for sex offenses involving minors during the time the previous statute was still running, the extension was permissible); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 Cr. 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (same). Moreover, while the conduct alleged in the Indictment may have occurred years ago, the risk of a significant term of incarceration - and thus the motive to flee - is of course only very recent. Each of these factors - the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, and the possibility of lengthy incarceration - creates an extraordinary incentive to flee. And as further described below, the defendant has the means and money to do so. B. The Characteristics of the Defendant The history and characteristics of the defendant also strongly support detention. As an initial matter, the defendant's extensive international ties would make it exceptionally easy for her to flee and live abroad. The defendant was born in France and raised in the United Kingdom, where she attended school. Although she became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 2002, she also remains a citizen of the United Kingdom and France. Travel records from United States Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") reflect that she has engaged in frequent international travel, including at least fifteen international flights in the last three years to locations including the United Kingdom, Japan, and Qatar. In addition, CBP records reflect that, consistent with her citizenship status, the defendant appears to possess passports from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. 1 Prior to the amendment, the statute of limitations for sexual offenses involving minors ran until the victim reached the age of 25, and as such, all of the relevant charges in the Indictment remained timely as of the 2003 amendment described above. --- PAGE BREAK --- of Ms. Maxwell's London house and any other assets, excluding salary, hereinafter acquired. The asset manager will approve the financial institution at which the New Account is created and must approve and co-sign any expenditure from the New Account, with the exception of disbursements for Ms. Maxwell's legal fees in connection with the ongoing criminal and civil litigation and for payment of taxes, which will not require authorization. No illiquid assets may be sold, conveyed or transferred without approval of the asset monitor. 2. Other Assets The only funds that will not be included in the New Account are (1) the money currently held in escrow by Ms. Maxwell's attorneys, which will be used exclusively for her defense; and (2) the roughly $450,000 in the Personal Account which her spouse will use only for living expenses. The asset monitor shall regularly receive information regarding activity of the Personal Account, including the account balance, on a weekly basis. The asset monitor must also receive five-day advance notice of any check, on-line payment, or transfer of funds in any amount exceeding $5,000, and the reason for such payment. Ms. Maxwell's spouse agrees to be bound by these restrictions and reporting requirements. The asset monitor shall report to Pretrial Services any possible non-compliance or disbursement in violation of the terms and conditions specified above. 3. Selected Asset Monitor The Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., a retired federal District Court judge and the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, has agreed to undertake the position of asset monitor. (Judge Duffey's bio is attached as Exhibit A.) Judge Duffey has extensive experience evaluating and monitoring funds held in and disbursed from financial --- PAGE BREAK --- Case#: 20-cr-00330 LAW OFFICES OF BOBBI C. STERNHEIM government in person to confer on a briefing schedule for supplemental pretrial motions, as well as other deadlines, which we are prepared to discuss with the Court at the arraignment. The government's revised trial estimate from two to four weeks remains unrealistic and does not include jury selection, which will take longer than usual in this media-saturated case. We oppose advancing jury selection beyond early distribution of questionnaires to prospective jurors. Even if the case were tried on the previous indictment on July 12th, carving off any time required for trial preparation is unwarranted and unfair. A continuance is justified based on the second superseding indictment. The new charges up the ante and double Ms. Maxwell's sentencing exposure. To deny her a continuance undercuts her constitutional right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. A continuance - the need for which is caused solely by the government - is reasonable and necessary in defense of Ms. Maxwell. The denial of a continuance risks a miscarriage of justice. Despite Its Necessity, A Continuance Further Prejudices Ms. Maxwell A delay of the July 12th trial - especially one that accommodates counsel's other trial schedules - has a direct and deleterious impact on Ms. Maxwell as a result of her continued detention, the details of which are well known to the Court. In addition to her prolonged detention, she is the victim on ongoing hostile media reporting which impacts the ability to seat fair and impartial jurors. On April 26th, Second Circuit will hear oral argument on Ms. Maxwell's bail appeal and may moot any need for a further bail application. Nonetheless, Ms. Maxwell reserves her right to seek a bail hearing depending on the Circuit's decision. 7 DOJ-OGR-00001395 --- PAGE BREAK --- e) Shall be reviewed by the Defendant solely in the presence of Defense Counsel or when provided access to Discovery materials in electronic format by BOP officials; f) May be disclosed only by Defense Counsel and only to Designated Persons; g) May be shown to, either in person, by videoconference, or via a read-only document review platform, but not disseminated to or provided copies of to, Potential Defense Witnesses, to the extent deemed necessary by Defense Counsel, for trial preparation, and after such individual(s) have read and signed this Order acknowledging that such individual(s) are bound by this Order. 11. Copies of Discovery or other materials produced by the Government in this action bearing "highly confidential" stamps or otherwise specifically designated as "highly confidential," and/or electronic Discovery materials designated as "highly confidential" by the Government, including such materials marked as "highly confidential" either on the documents or materials themselves, or designated as "highly confidential" in an index, folder title, or document title, are deemed "Highly Confidential Information." To the extent any Highly Confidential Information is physically produced to the Defendant and Defense Counsel, rather than being made available to the Defendant and Defense Counsel for on-site review, the 8 App.082 DOJ-OGR-00019541 --- PAGE BREAK --- concerns about whether the full extent of the Defendant's assets have been disclosed in light of the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it accounts for all of the Defendant's and her spouse's assets. See Dec. Op. at 16–17. The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant's bail package. The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at 5–6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. D at 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the Defendant's total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate flight. When combined with the Court's weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance. If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). 11 DOJ-OGR-00000874 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/07/20 Page 11 of 20 2020 WL 3536277, at *4–5 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020). Although the presumption “remains a factor to be considered” even after the defendant has met her burden of production, “[a]t all times . . . the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by . . . a preponderance of the evidence” that the defendant poses a flight risk that cannot be addressed by any bail conditions. English, 629 F.3d at 319 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Deutsch, No. 18-CR-502 (FB), 2020 WL 3577398, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020). And regardless of the presence of the presumption or the nature of the charges alleged, “[n]othing in this section [3142] shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j); see also United States v. Crowell, No. 06-CR-291E(F), 2006 WL 3541736, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2006) (those charged with crimes involving minors “continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence in setting conditions of release.”). B. Ms. Maxwell Has Rebutted the Presumption That She Poses a Flight Risk, and the Government Has Not Carried Its Burden That No Combination of Conditions Can Be Imposed To Reasonably Assure Her Presence In Court The government has not carried its burden of establishing that no set of conditions will reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell’s appearance in court. As set forth below, Ms. Maxwell’s personal history, her family and other ties to this country, and her conduct prior to her arrest easily rebut the presumption that she presents a risk of flight. For these same reasons, the government cannot establish that the strict bail conditions she proposes, which are consistent with a number of cases in this Circuit in which courts have ordered release, will not “reasonably assure” her presence in court. Accordingly, the Court should order Ms. Maxwell released pursuant to her proposed conditions. 11 DOJ-OGR-00000971 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 583 Filed 10/25/22 Page 11 of 5353 The New York Times Company David McCraw Senior Vice President & Deputy General Counsel T 212 556 4031 mccraw@nytimes.com 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 nytimes.com January 24, 2022 VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-cr-00330 (AJN) - Unsealing of Defendant's Motion for a New Trial and Questionnaires of Seated Jurors Dear Judge Nathan: I write on behalf of The New York Times Company ("The Times") to request that the Court unseal (a) Defendant's Motion for a New Trial and accompanying brief and exhibits (Dkt. 580) and (b) the filled-out questionnaires for the twelve seated jurors. These records are subject to both First Amendment and common law rights of access, which set stringent standards for sealing.1 We ask that the Court unseal them, with only those redactions necessary to protect the identities of jurors, to the extent they have not already been disclosed. We also ask that this Court make clear that any subsequent briefs and exhibits filed in conjunction with this motion should not be filed under seal and with only those redactions necessary to protect jurors' identities. As the Court knows, both sets of sealed records bear on allegations of juror misconduct. On January 5, 2022, the parties wrote to this Court regarding public statements made by one juror, identified as "Juror 50," about how his jury room disclosure that he was a victim of sexual assault 1 The right of access is an affirmative enforceable public right, and it is well-established that the press has standing to enforce this right. See, e.g., Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct. for Norfolk City, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982); Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004). USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 6/29/22 The motion to unseal the questionnaires of the twelve seated jurors is GRANTED. The motion to unseal the Defendant's motion for a new trial is moot as the Defendant's motion for a new trial is docketed at Dkt. No. 613. SO ORDERED. Alison J. Nathan 6/29/22 DOI-OGR-00010754 --- PAGE BREAK --- take to protect herself, her family members, her friends and colleagues, and their children, from unrelenting and intrusive media coverage, threats, and irreparable reputational harm. Ever since Epstein’s arrest, Ms. Maxwell has been at the center of a crushing onslaught of press articles, television specials, and social media posts painting her in the most damning light possible and prejudging her guilt. The sheer volume of media reporting mentioning Ms. Maxwell is staggering. Since Epstein’s arrest, she has been mentioned in literally thousands of media publications, news reports, and other online content. The media attention also spawned a carnival-like atmosphere of speculation about her whereabouts. In November 2019, the British tabloid, The Sun, even offered a £10,000 bounty for information about Ms. Maxwell’s location. A headline reminiscent of a Wild West wanted poster read: “WANTED: The Sun is offering a £10,000 reward for information on Jeffrey Epstein pal Ghislaine Maxwell.”10 And in the days leading up to her arrest, there was a deluge of media reports (all untrue) claiming that Ms. Maxwell was hiding out in an apartment in Paris to avoid questioning by the FBI.11 She has seen helicopters flying over her home and reporters hiding in the bushes. Indeed, since Ms. Maxwell’s arrest on July 2, 2020, her counsel has been flooded with hundreds of media inquiries and solicitations from members of the public. The “open season” declared on Ms. Maxwell after Epstein’s death has come with an even darker cost – she has been the target of alarming physical threats, even death threats, and has had to hire security guards to ensure her safety. The media feeding frenzy, which has only intensified in recent months, has also deeply affected her family and friends. Some of Ms. Maxwell’s closest friends who had nothing whatsoever to do with Epstein have lost their jobs or 10 See https://www.the-sun.com/news/74018/the-sun-is-offering-a-10000-reward-for-information-on-jeffrey-epstein-pal-ghislaine-maxwell/. 11 See, e.g., https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ article-8444137/Jeffrey-Epsteins-fugitive-madam-Ghislaine-Maxwell-hiding-luxury-Paris.html. 15 DOJ-OGR-00000976 --- PAGE BREAK --- suffered severe professional and reputational damage simply by being associated with her. Ms. Maxwell therefore did what any responsible person would do - she separated herself from everyone she cares about and removed herself from the public eye in order to keep herself and her friends out of harm's way.12 Lacking any evidence required under the governing standard that Ms. Maxwell presents an "actual risk of flight," Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75, the government's flight risk argument is reduced to the following: Ms. Maxwell is a woman of means who has foreign citizenship and has traveled internationally in the past, and who now faces serious charges. But if that were sufficient, then virtually every defendant with a foreign passport and any meaningful amount of funds would need to be detained as a flight risk. See Hung v. United States 439 U.S. 1326, 1329 (1978) (to detain based on risk of flight, government must show more than "opportunities for flight," and instead must establish an "inclination on the part of [the defendant] to flee"). That is not what the Bail Reform Act requires. Indeed, courts in this Circuit and elsewhere commonly find that bail conditions can adequately address risk of flight, even where individuals have foreign citizenship and passports or otherwise substantial foreign connections, and financial means. See, e.g., Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 66; United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03-cr-947(SAS), 2004 WL 169790, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28. 2004); United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004); United States v. Kashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048, 1050-52 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). Finally, the ongoing travel restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would pose a significant hurdle to Ms. Maxwell's ability to flee the United States, particularly to 12 The media spotlight has also drawn out people who claim to speak for Ms. Maxwell, and even purport to have had direct communications with her, but who, in fact, have no ties to Ms. Maxwell whatsoever. One such person has even given numerous television interviews on news shows in the United Kingdom. --- PAGE BREAK --- cases related to Epstein in the Southern District of New York and has sat for depositions in those cases. Similarly, throughout the course of the criminal investigation of this case, which has been publicly reported on for nearly a year, Ms. Maxwell has remained in the United States. Indeed, on July 7, 2019, the day after Epstein's arrest, Ms. Maxwell reached out to the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, through counsel, and maintained regular contact with them right up to the point of her arrest. The government's broad assertion that Ms. Maxwell has engaged in "frequent international travel" in the last three years (Gov. Mem. at 6) obscures the critical point: she has not left the country even once since Epstein's arrest. Ms. Maxwell's decision to remain in the United States after Epstein's arrest and subsequent death in August 2019 is particularly significant because any incentive she may have had to flee would have been even more acute at that time. Within days of Epstein's death, a steady stream of press articles began turning the public's attention to Ms. Maxwell—wrongly substituting her for Epstein—and speculating that she had become the prime target of the government's investigation.9 Adding even more fuel to this fire, several of the women claiming to be victims of Epstein's abuse began publicly calling for her immediate arrest and prosecution. Despite the increasing risk of being criminally charged, and the media firestorm that was redirected toward her after Epstein's death, and despite having ample opportunity to leave the country, Ms. Maxwell stayed in the United States for almost an entire year until she was arrested. These actions weigh heavily in favor of release. See United States v. Friedman, 9 See, e.g., Spotlight turns on Jeffrey Epstein's British socialite 'fixer' Ghislaine Maxwell after his suicide - but will she be prosecuted?, Daily Mail (Aug. 10, 2019), https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7344765/Spotlight-turns-Jeffrey-Epsteins-fixer-Ghislaine-Maxwell-suicide.html; Ghislaine Maxwell: the woman accused of helping Jeffrey Epstein groom girls, The Guardian (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/12/ghislaine-maxwell-woman-accused-jeffrey-epstein-groom-girls; British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell in spotlight after Epstein's apparent suicide, NBC News (Aug. 12, 2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/british-socialite-ghislaine-maxwell-spotlight-after-epstein-s-apparent-suicide-n1041111. --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/07/20 Page 18 of 260 1. Ms. Maxwell's Personal History and Characteristics Demonstrate That She Is Not a Flight Risk a. Ms. Maxwell Has No Prior Criminal Record, and Has Significant Ties to the United States and the New York Region Ms. Maxwell's history and characteristics do not "strongly support detention," as the government contends (Gov. Mem. at 6), but instead demonstrate that she is firmly rooted in this country and that her appearance can be reasonably assured with appropriate bail conditions. Ms. Maxwell has no criminal record, which includes the approximately twenty-five-year period from the time the conduct alleged in the indictment took place to the present. Ms. Maxwell also has significant ties to the United States. She has lived in this country for almost 30 years and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2002. Ms. Maxwell also has strong family ties to this country. Two of her sisters, who have agreed to co-sign her bond, live in the United States, and they have several children who are U.S.-born citizens. Ms. Maxwell is very close with her sisters and maintains regular contact with them, as well as with her nieces and nephews. Ms. Maxwell also has numerous close friends and professional colleagues who reside in this country. In sum, the United States has been Ms. Maxwell's home for decades. b. Ms. Maxwell Has Actively Litigated Civil Cases in this District and Has Not Left the United States Since Epstein's 2019 Arrest Ms. Maxwell has never once attempted to "hide" from the government or her accusers, and has never shown any intent to leave the country. To the contrary, Ms. Maxwell has always vehemently denied that she was involved in illegal or improper conduct related to Epstein, and her conduct has been entirely consistent with someone who fully intends to remain in this country and fight any allegations brought against her. For example, since 2015, and continuing through today, Ms. Maxwell has actively litigated several civil 12 DOJ-OGR-00000972 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 48 Filed 07/07/20 Page 18 of 260 837 F.2d 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 1988) (overturning district court's decision that defendant posed a flight risk based in part on the ground that the defendant took "no steps" to flee jurisdiction in three-week period between execution of search warrant at home and arrest); United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176, 1179-80 (D. Mass. 1990) (concluding defendants did not present a flight risk because each of them "for three years knew there was substantial evidence of the likely charges against them and did not attempt to flee before indictment"). 837 F.2d 48, 49-50 (2d Cir. 1988) (overturning district court's decision that defendant posed a flight risk based in part on the ground that the defendant took "no steps" to flee jurisdiction in three-week period between execution of search warrant at home and arrest); United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F. Supp. 1176, 1179-80 (D. Mass. 1990) (concluding defendants did not present a flight risk because each of them "for three years knew there was substantial evidence of the likely charges against them and did not attempt to flee before indictment"). Indeed, the absence of any allegation by the government that Ms. Maxwell was taking steps to leave the country at the time of her arrest is conspicuous. The government has offered no proof that she was making plans to leave the country. In fact, had the government alerted her counsel that she was about to be arrested, we would have arranged for Ms. Maxwell's prompt, voluntary surrender. Instead, the government arrested Ms. Maxwell without warning on the day before the July 4th holiday, thus ensuring that she would be in federal custody on the one-year anniversary of Epstein's arrest. c. Ms. Maxwell's Actions to Protect Herself From Intrusive Media Coverage and Death Threats Do Not Demonstrate an Intent to Flee Furthermore, the steps Ms. Maxwell took to leave the public eye after Epstein's arrest are not indicative of a risk of flight. The government notes that Ms. Maxwell dropped 14 DOJ-OGR-00000974 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-JPO Document 188 Filed 07/10/21 Page 19 of 260 United States v. Epstein, 425 F. Supp. 3d 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)............................................... 17 United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)................................................ 21 United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988)........................................................... 13, 18 United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) ..................................................... 16 United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009) ...................................................... 16 United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) ...................................................... 16 United States v. Kashoggi, 717 F. Supp. 1048 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)...................................................... 16 United States v. Mattis, No. 20-1713, 2020 WL 3536277 (2d Cir. June 30, 2020)............................... 10 United States v. Moscaritolo, No. 10 Cr. 4 (JL), 2010 WL 309679 (D.N.H. Jan. 26, 2010) ....................... 18 United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007)............................................................... 9, 10, 16, 18 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)......................................................................... 9 United States v. Stephens, 15-CR-95 (AJN), 2020 WL 1295155 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) ............................................ 5, 6, 7, 8 United States v. Veres, No. 3:20-CR-18-J-32JBT, 2020 WL 1042051 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2020)............... 18 United States v. Williams-Bethea, No. 18-CR-78 (AJN), 2020 WL 2848098 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020).................... 6 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3142............................................................................... passim iii DOJ-OGR-00000960 --- PAGE BREAK --- out of public view after Epstein's arrest, which the government seeks to portray as "hiding" from the law. The government further argues that she has taken several steps to avoid detection, including moving residences and switching her phone and email address. (Gov. Mem. at 8). But Ms. Maxwell did not take these steps to hide from law enforcement or evade prosecution. Instead, they were necessary measures that Ms. Maxwell was forced to --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-cr-00330 Document 18 Filed 07/07/20 Page 19 of 260 Moreover, the government overstates the potential for Ms. Maxwell to spend "decades in prison" if she is convicted. (Gov. Mem. at 5.) In fact, her likely total exposure even if she were convicted on all counts is 10 years, assuming the Court were to follow the traditional practice in this District and impose concurrent sentences. Although a 10-year sentence would be significant, it is a far cry from the government's forecast, further demonstrating that the government has not met its burden of showing Ms. Maxwell is an actual risk of flight. The Government's Case Is Subject to Significant Challenges. In evaluating the strength of the government's case, we note that Ms. Maxwell intends to mount several legal challenges to the indictment, including that: (i) this prosecution is barred by Epstein's September 24, 2007 non-prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice, which covers "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein"; (ii) the conspiracy, enticement of minors, and transporting of minors charges are time-barred and otherwise legally flawed; and (iii) the two perjury charges are subject to dismissal on several legal grounds.15 In addition, as we understand from the face of the indictment, the government's case is based primarily on the testimony of three individuals about events that allegedly occurred roughly 25 years ago between 1994 and 1997. It is inherently more difficult to prosecute cases relating to decades-old conduct. These issues further call into question the strength of the government's case, and provide an independent basis justifying release on bail. 15 The defense is also considering whether the government's comments in connection with this case conform to Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and whether to seek appropriate relief from the Court. 19 DOJ-OGR-00000980 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/07/20 Page 20 of 260 3. The Proposed Bail Package Is More Than Adequate to Secure Ms. Maxwell's Presence For the reasons stated above, the Court should release Ms. Maxwell because the circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic will greatly increase her personal risk and prevent her from meaningfully participating in her defense, and because the government has not carried its burden under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. We respectfully submit that the proposed bail package represents the "least restrictive" set of conditions that will reasonably ensure Ms. Maxwell's presence in court. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The package includes six co-signers—Ms. Maxwell's siblings, relatives and friends—many of whom reside in the United States, and all of whom continue to support her despite the unrelenting media attacks that Ms. Maxwell and they, themselves, have suffered as a result of this case. Each of them has voluntarily agreed to assume responsibility for an extremely large bond amount of $5 million, in order to secure her appearance. The bond is also to be secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth roughly $3.75 million. The package also includes stringent travel and physical restrictions, including surrendering all passports and no new travel applications, travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and home detention with electronic GPS monitoring. Ms. Maxwell, for personal reasons, will continue to need security guards to protect her upon release. Under the circumstances, if the Court requires it, the security guards could report to Pretrial Services.16 16 In United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit curtailed the circumstances under which a court can grant pretrial release to a defendant on the condition that the defendant pays for private armed security guards. Boustani, nevertheless, held that a defendant may be released on such a condition if the defendant "is deemed to be a flight risk primarily because of his wealth. In other words, a defendant may be released on such a condition only where, but for his wealth, he would not have been detained." Id. (emphasis in original). We submit that a similarly situated defendant who, like Ms. Maxwell, had no prior criminal record, significant ties to the United States, and a demonstrated lack of intent to flee the country, as well as numerous, supportive co-signers, but who did 20 DOJ-OGR-00000981 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 17 Filed 09/08/20 Page 20 of 125 aided and abetted the same, to wit, MAXWELL arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2423(a) and 2.) COUNT FIVE (Perjury) The Grand Jury further charges: 20. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 of this Indictment are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth within. 21. On or about April 22, 2016, in the Southern District of New York, GHISLAINE MAXWELL, the defendant, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a deposition in connection with a case then pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under docket number 15 Civ. 7433, knowingly made false material declarations, to wit, MAXWELL gave the following underlined false testimony: Q. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know. A. I don't know what you're talking about. ... 15 App.027 DOJ-OGR-00019486 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ms. Maxwell has a number of other family members and friends who, under normal circumstances, would also co-sign and secure her bond. She is not relying on them in connection with this bail application in an effort to safeguard their privacy and protect them and their families from harm. The proposed bail conditions are consistent with those approved by courts in this Circuit in other high-profile cases, and should be approved here. See, e.g., United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (alleged leader of Genovese crime family who was charged with racketeering and extortion granted release subject to conditions), aff'd, 749 F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831, 832 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Marc Dreier, accused of "colossal criminality" and alleged to be a "high flight risk," granted release subject to conditions); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (Bernie Madoff, charged with "largest Ponzi scheme ever" and alleged to be a "serious risk of flight," granted release subject to conditions). not have Ms. Maxwell's means, would be released on bail conditions. Accordingly, if the Court deems it necessary, it may impose private security guards as a condition of release. --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330 Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 22 of 260 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Maxwell respectfully requests that the Court order her release on bail pursuant to the conditions she has proposed. Dated: July 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mark S. Cohen Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600 Jeffrey S. Pagliuca (pro hac vice admission pending) Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FORMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364 Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 22 DOJ-OGR-00000983 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 20-cr-00330-PAE Document 178 Filed 12/02/22 Page 26 of 26 1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein's NPA with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell's prosecution by USAO-SDNY. 2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment was filed within the statute of limitations. 3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Maxwell's Rule 33 motion for a new trial. 4. The District Court's response to a jury note did not result in a constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the allegations in the Indictment. 5. The District Court's sentence was procedurally reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court's June 29, 2022, judgment of conviction. 26 DOJ-OGR-00014876