DOJ-OGR-00021775.pdf

Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page33 of 35 1892. But Kimberly Espinoza did. Id. In fact, according to Espinoza, by the time Kellen began working for Epstein in 2001-2002, Ms. Maxwell and Epstein “went their separate ways” (Tr. 2370) and Kellen sat in the office where Ms. Maxwell used to sit and managed Epstein’s properties. Tr. 2337, 2370-71, 2375-6, 2382. Carolyn corroborates this fact when she testified that there was a clean break in time between when she dealt with Maxwell and when she dealt with Kellen. Tr. 1527. There is, quite simply, not a single witness that testified that Ms. Maxwell supervised Kellen in any capacity, much less in connection with anything of a criminal nature. Nor does the existence of an earlier version of the 2005 household manual, attested to by Juan Alessi (Tr. 808) or flight records support a finding that Ms. Maxwell supervised Sarah Kellen as a criminal participant. This is the thin gruel upon which the court based its finding (see A417) and it is simply not sufficient to support the enhancement even by a preponderance of the evidence. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated here and in Points I and II of Ms. Maxwell’s Principal Brief, the Convictions should be reversed, and the Indictment, or a portion thereof, be dismissed and a new trial ordered on any remaining counts. Alternatively, for the reasons stated in Point I, the matter should be remanded to the District Court for a hearing. For the reasons stated in Points III (Point II herein) and IV of Ms. Maxwell’s Principal Brief, the Convictions should be reversed, and the matter remanded for a new trial. 27 DOJ-OGR-00021775