Document 20-cr-60038

Finally, the Government recognizes that the COVID-19 pandemic is - and should be - a relevant factor for the Court and the parties in this case. However, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") is taking very significant steps to address that concern, and the defendant has offered no reason why she should be treated any differently from the many defendants who are currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") pending trial, including defendants who have medical conditions that place them at heightened risk. Inmates at the MDC are able to assist in their own defense, especially long before trial, through established policies and procedures applicable to every pretrial detainee. This defendant should not be granted the special treatment she requests. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, she has significant assets and foreign ties, she has demonstrated her ability to evade detection, and the victims of the defendant's crimes seek her detention. Because there is no set of conditions short of incarceration that can reasonably assure the defendant's appearance, the Government urges the Court to detain her. ARGUMENT Each of the relevant factors to be considered as to flight risk - the nature and circumstances of the offense, the strength of the evidence, and the history and characteristics of the defendant - weigh strongly in favor of detention, and the defendant's proposed package would do absolutely nothing to mitigate those risks. I. The Defendant's Victims Seek Detention As the Court is aware, pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), a crime victim has the right to be reasonably heard at certain public proceedings in the district court, including proceedings involving release. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). Consistent with that requirement, the Government has been in contact with victims and their counsel in connection with its application for detention. Counsel for one victim has already conveyed to the Government that --- PAGE BREAK --- their client opposes bail for the defendant, and has asked the Government to convey that view to the Court. The Government also expects that one or more victims will exercise their right to be heard at the July 14, 2020 hearing in this matter, and will urge the Court not to grant bail. More generally, as noted above, the Government is deeply concerned that if the defendant is bailed, the victims will be denied justice in this case. That outcome is unacceptable to both the victims and the Government. II. The Government's Case Is Strong The defendant's motion argues, in a conclusory fashion, that the Government's case must be weak because the conduct charged occurred in the 1990s. That argument, which ignores the many specific allegations in the Indictment, could not be more wrong. As the superseding indictment (the “Indictment”) makes plain, multiple victims have provided detailed, credible evidence of the defendant's criminal conduct. And while that conduct did take place a number of years ago, it is unsurprising that the victims have been unable to forget the defendant's predatory conduct after all this time, as traumatic childhood experiences often leave indelible marks. The recollections of the victims bear striking resemblances that corroborate each other and provide compelling proof of the defendant's active participation in a disturbing scheme to groom and sexually abuse minor girls. In addition to compelling victim accounts, as the Government has explained, the victims' accounts are corroborated by documentary evidence and other witnesses. In particular, the victims' accounts are supported by contemporaneous documents and records, such as flight records, diary entries, and business records. The powerful testimony of these victims, who had strikingly similar experiences with Maxwell, together with documentary --- PAGE BREAK --- charges conduct not covered by the NPA, which was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007, a time period that post-dates the conduct charged in the Indictment, and to violations of statutes not charged in this Indictment. In this respect, the Government further notes that the Indictment brought in this District is entirely independent of the prior SDFL investigation, and two of the victims referenced in the Indictment were never approached or interviewed by the SDFL, and had never spoken to law enforcement until they met with our Office in 2019. Nor is there any force to the defendant's assertion - without explanation, much less legal authority - that the charges in the Indictment are untimely. As the Government explained in its opening brief, the charges in this case are timely, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which permits the prosecution of crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors at any time during the life of the victim. The defendant's claim that the Indictment is barred by the statute of limitations has no basis in law. For similar reasons, the Court should not give any weight to the defendant's bare assertions that the indictment is somehow "legally flawed" in unspecified ways or that the perjury counts are "subject to dismissal" for unspecified reasons. Opposition Memorandum at 19. These conclusory claims are baseless. III. The Defendant Poses An Extreme Risk of Flight As the Government detailed in its opening brief, the defendant's international ties, considerable financial resources, and transient lifestyle all make her a risk of flight. That risk is further exacerbated by the fact that the defendant is a citizen of France, which does not extradite its citizens to the United States pursuant to French law. In addition, and as detailed further below, the defendant has not only the motive to flee, but the means to do so swiftly and effectively. The defendant appears to have access to extensive sources of wealth. She does not have a job that would tie her to the United States, much less the Southern District of New York, and she does not --- PAGE BREAK --- Further, and as set forth below, those victims' accounts are corroborated by other evidence, including contemporary documents and other witnesses. In challenging this factor, the defense essentially restates its prior arguments on this score. At the original hearing, the defense argued that the Government's case was weak because it rested heavily on witness testimony regarding events from 25 years ago. (See Dkt. 18 at 19; Tr. 64-65). Having received and reviewed the discovery, the defense now contends the Government's corroborating evidence—some of which the Motion itself identifies—is insufficient and reiterates defense complaints that the discovery does not include other types of evidence.1 (See Mot. at 30-33). None of the defense arguments on this score changes the calculus for this factor. Three different victims are prepared to provide detailed testimony describing the defendant's role in Epstein's criminal scheme to sexually abuse them as minors. As demonstrated by the information outlined in the Indictment, these accounts corroborate each other by independently describing the same techniques used by the defendant and Epstein to groom and entice minor girls to engage in sex acts. Each victim will describe how the defendant befriended her, asked detailed questions about her life, and then normalized sexual activity around Epstein. Each victim will describe the use of massage as a technique to transition into sexual activity. Each victim will describe how the presence of an adult woman manipulated her into entering an abusive situation. In other words, this is a case that involves multiple witnesses describing the same course of conduct, substantially corroborating each other. 1 At the initial bail hearing, the defendant also raised a series of legal challenges she intended to make on the face of the Indictment, all of which she contended weighed in favor of granting bail. After receiving discovery, the defense now appears to have abandoned those arguments, at least insofar as they pertain to the issue of bail. 10 DOJ-OGR-00020073