DOJ-OGR-00004289.pdf

--- Page 1 --- The image displays a page from a legal document, specifically a court transcript or brief. The text is in black font on a white background, with a blue header at the top that reads "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 24 of 32." Here is the extracted text: **Header:** Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 24 of 32 **Body:** * evidence, that there are in fact two distinct conspiracies and that the defendant is not being placed in jeopardy twice for the same crime." Id. at 467 (citations omitted). * As previously discussed, it is clear from the grand jury testimony that Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment charge the same offenses based on the same allegations of Accuser-4 that were presented to the SDFL grand jury and formed the basis for a conspiracy count and a substantive sex trafficking count in the proposed SDFL indictment. (See Section I supra). The government cannot make a contrary showing. Accordingly, prosecuting Epstein for Counts Five and Six would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. And because Epstein negotiated immunity for Ms. Maxwell and any other "potential co-conspirators" as part of the terms of the NPA, Ms. Maxwell cannot be prosecuted for those crimes either. See United States v. Cambindo Valencia, 609 F.2d 603, 637 (2d Cir. 1979) ("If [the defendant's] earlier plea is found to bar prosecution of him because of double jeopardy, since concededly the plea included an agreement to drop the charges against [his wife], the instant prosecution of [his wife] will also be barred."). Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment must therefore be dismissed. * Counts Five and Six should also be dismissed because they are time-barred by the applicable five-year statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3282. In its previous motions related to the S1 Indictment, the government asserted that the Mann Act counts (Counts One through Four) are timely because they are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which was amended in 2003 to extend the limitations period for "offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse ... of a child under the age of 18 years" to "during the life of the child." (Dkt. 204 at 24-26, 36-41). Ms. Maxwell argued that 18 U.S.C. § 3283 did not apply to the Mann Act offenses because they do not "necessarily entail" the sexual abuse of a minor and therefore are not "offense[s] involving" such conduct. (Dkt. 144 at 12-17; Dkt. 206 at 10-15). The Court ruled in favor of the **Footer:** DOJ-OGR-00004289 **Page Number:** 20 Note that the text is not fully legible in some areas, and there may be additional text or formatting that is not visible in the image.