EPSTEIN
page 8 / 1108 . OCR, unverified
United States v. D’Amelio,
683 F.3d 412 (2d Cir, 2012)... eececceceesceeeceseeeseceseceeesaeeeeeeseenaeeaeceeseeeseesreneenneenes 7, 8, 12, 16
United States v. Diallo,
507 F. App’x 89 (2d Cir. 2013) oo... ceeccesesseeseesseeeeeeseceaecaeecaeeeneeseeaecnaecaaesaeeseeeeenseeaeennesatenneess 21
United States v. Dixon,
S09 U.S. 688 (1993)....ccccescscesseesseeeecesecenecseeeseeseeeseeaecnaecneesaeeseesseeusesnaesaeesaeeeeeeseeuaeeaeeneeeaeeeneens 20
United States v. Estrada,
320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003). ........cecceeccesecscesseesseeeeeesecaecacecaeeeseeseeesecaecaecaeesaeeseseerenaeenseeats 20, 21
United States v. Gross,
No. 15-cr-769 (AJN), 2017 WL 4685111 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017)... eeeeeereeteeteeeee passim
United States v. Johansen,
F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 1995)......ccccccssccessceeeeseeeseeseeeseeesecaecaeesaeeeneeseseaecaesaeesaeeseeseeenaeenaesneeeaeenseens 20
ill
DOJ-OGR- 00008928
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008928.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008929.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008929.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document600- Filed 02/11/22 Page5of37
United States v. Josephburg,
459 FS 350 Gd iP, DOIG / ecmssscosws casemrecneceracss mms om He ne ONSRO MLE ER Ma RON IER 19,21
United States v. Korfant,
771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir, 1985)... cecceeceseseesneeceeeceseeeseeesacecaeesaeeeseeesaeecnaeenseessneesaeessaeesneeeenes 21,22
United States v. Macchia,
F.3d 662 (2d Cir. 1994)... ee eecceeceeseeeeneeeseeeeeeesneesaeecaeeseeeeneesaeecsaeeneeeseeeeatesnaeenes 21, 23, 24
United States v. Miller,
Vee 9
United States v. Millstein,
A401 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2005)... cee ceecceseceeseeceeeeeeneeeeeecsaeceaeceseeesneecaeecaeeseeeseaeesaeecnaeeseeeseneeeneeed 9,11
United States v. Reid,
A475 F. App’x 385 (2d Cir. 2012) oo... cecceecceeceeeseesseeceeeeeneesaeecaeceaeeseneesaeecnaeenaeeseneesaeessaeenneeenes we)
United States v. Roshko,
969 F.2d 1 (2d Cir, 1992) ooo. eeceecseeeeeneesseeeeeeeseneeseeecsaecaeeseneesaeecsaeeseeeseneesaeesaeeseeeteneeeaeees 8, 11
United States v. Sattar,
314 F. Supp. 2d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)... cece ceeeceeeeeeeeeseecneeeeeeesneesaeecaeeseeeeseeesaeeenaeereeeeeeeeeneees 20
United States v. Wozniak,
126 F350 TOS C2 ir, 190 Tes cane msememmsemmen secmnees seen mae SORE OL ARENON ea 8, 10, 11, 18
Statutes
U.S.C. § 37 Loc cccecccccecccccssececenecessseeecsaecesseecesaeesusasesusaeeessnaesssceeensneeenneesseeeesseeeeesneeesaas 18, 20, 21, 22
U.S.C. § 846... cccccccccecssecessseeesseecnsseeensneecnneecnneesnneesnseeessaneesnseeessseeesseneeseneeesseeeessereesseeeseeeess 21
ee. passim
New York Penal Law, Section 130.55 ........ceecceecceeseeseceneeeeeeeeneeceeceaeceseeeeneesaaeseaeenereeeneeeaeees passim
Other Authorities
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 oo... .ccccccecccccccscccccccsssssseceeescccenssssseseeeeeecesessssnseeeessecs 1, 30, 31
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 wo... ccccccceecsccccececcesessssssceeeseccessessseseessescesesssseeneseess 1, 2, 30
iv
DOJ-OGR-00008929
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00008929.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00008930.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00008930.jpg
----------------------------------------
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document600_ Filed 02/11/22 Page6of37
Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Omnibus Memorandum in Support of her
Post-Trial Motions. For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Maxwell moves the Court, in the
alternative, to:
1. Vacate her convictions as to the Mann Act counts (Counts One through Four)
and grant a new trial under Rule 33 because the convictions were based on a
constructive amendment/variance from the allegations in the S2 Indictment
(the “Indictment’”).
2. Enter judgment on only one of the three conspiracy counts because they are
multiplicitous.
3. Vacate her convictions as to all counts and dismiss the Indictment due to pre-
indictment delay.
4. Enter a judgment of acquittal as to all counts under Rule 29 because the
government failed to prove each element of the crimes charged beyond a
reasonable doubt.
ARGUMENT
I. The Court Must Vacate Ms. Maxwell’s Convictions on the Mann Act Counts Due to
a Constructive Amendment/Variance from the Crimes Charged in the Indictment.
Throughout this case, the government has consistently maintained that to convict Ms.
Maxwell on the Mann Act Counts (Counts One through Four), it was necessary to prove that Ms.
Maxwell enticed or caused underaged girls to travel to New York, or conspired to do the same,
with the intent that they would engage in illegal sexual activity that violated New York law. The
government further acknowledged that evidence of sexual activity that occurred in locations
outside of New York, like Epstein’s residences in New Mexico and Florida, was not, by itself,
sufficient to convict Ms. Maxwell on the Mann Act charges.