DOJ-OGR-00005682.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header:** * Case Number: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * Document Number: 387 * Filed Date: 10/29/21 * Page Number: 18 of 21 **Document Title:** * In the Alternative, the Court Should Preclude the Government and Accuser-3 from Representing that Accuser-3 Was a "Minor," or that She Was "Sexually Abused" by Epstein, and Give the Jury an Appropriate Limiting Instruction **Text Content:** * If the Court determines that the evidence related to Accuser-3 is admissible, either as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies or as 404(b) evidence, the Court should (1) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from referring to Accuser-3 as a "minor" or asserting that she was a "minor" at the time of the alleged sex acts, (2) preclude the government and Accuser-3 from representing that she was "sexually abused" by Jeffrey Epstein, and (3) give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction related to Accuser-3's testimony. * The government concedes that Accuser-3 alleges that she was 17 years old and above the age of consent in the U.K. when she purportedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London. * The government further concedes that Accuser-3 cannot establish that she was under the age of 18 when she alleges that she first traveled to the United States and engaged in sex acts with Epstein at his residences. Accuser-3 was therefore not a minor under the laws of the relevant jurisdictions when the alleged sex acts and the alleged international travel took place. It follows that the Court should not permit the government or Accuser-3 to refer to herself as a "minor" or claim that she was a minor when she allegedly engaged in sex acts with Epstein. * Similarly, the Court should not permit the government and Accuser-3 to assert that she was "sexually abused" by Epstein. The phrase "sexual abuse" connotes criminal activity, even though the alleged conduct was lawful. See Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562, 1569 (2017) ("Sexual abuse of a minor," the Government accordingly contends, "most naturally connotes conduct that (1) is illegal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger than 18 years old."") (quoting government's brief) (emphases added). Notwithstanding Accuser-3's "subjective experience" of these incidents, the use of the phrase "sexual abuse" should not be allowed because it will mislead the jury into thinking that Accuser-3 engaged in "criminal sexual conduct" that (1) is illegal, (2) involves sexual activity, and (3) is directed at a person younger than 18 years old. **Footer:** * DOJ-OGR-00005682