Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Maxwell Superseding Indictment
Maxwell Superseding Indictment
BY ECF
The Government writes to notify the Court that today, a Grand Jury sitting in Manhattan
returned a superseding indictment in the above-captioned case (the “S2 Indictment”). 1 The
Government respectfully submits this letter (1) to identify the differences between the charges
contained in the S2 Indictment and the charges contained in the prior indictment, S1 20 Cr. 330
(AJN) (the “S1 Indictment”); (2) to address the impact, if any, of the S2 Indictment on the status
of discovery and other disclosures; and (3) to address the impact of the S2 Indictment on the
1
The Government noted in its February 26, 2021 Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition
to the Defendant’s Pretrial Motions that its investigation remained ongoing and that the
Government would seek a superseding indictment no later than three months prior to trial. At this
juncture, while the Government’s investigation is still ongoing, if trial remains set for July 12,
2021 as scheduled, then the Government does not intend to seek any further indictments in this
case. To the extent the Government uncovers additional evidence that it may seek to introduce at
trial, it will promptly disclose such evidence to the defense as either Rule 16 or Jencks Act material.
Additionally, the Government remains cognizant that its Brady obligations remain ongoing and
will promptly disclose any exculpatory evidence of which it becomes aware.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 188 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 5
Page 2
Count One of the S2 Indictment charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy
to entice minors to travel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as
Count One of the S1 Indictment. Whereas Count One of the S1 Indictment alleged that this
conspiracy lasted through in or about 1997, Count One of the S2 Indictment alleges that the
conspiracy continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor
Victim-4, who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004.
Count Two of the S2 Indictment remains identical to Count Two of the S1 Indictment and
is unchanged.
Count Three of the S2 Indictment charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy
to transport minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which is the same statutory violation as Count
Three of the S1 Indictment. Whereas Count Three of the S1 Indictment alleged that this conspiracy
lasted through in or about 1997, Count Three of the S2 Indictment alleges that the conspiracy
continued through in or about 2004 and specifically identifies a fourth victim, Minor Victim-4,
who was a victim of this conspiracy between approximately 2001 and 2004.
Count Four of the S2 Indictment remains identical to Count Four of the S1 Indictment and
is unchanged.
Count Five of the S2 Indictment adds a new charge against the defendant. In particular,
Count Five alleges that the defendant participated in a sex trafficking conspiracy between
approximately 2001 and 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The S2 Indictment specifically
Page 3
Count Six of the S2 Indictment adds another new charge against the defendant. In
particular, Count Six alleges that the defendant participated in the sex trafficking of a minor, and
aided and abetted the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591 and 2. The S2 Indictment
Count Seven of the S2 Indictment is identical to Count Five of the S1 Indictment and is
otherwise unchanged.
Count Eight of the S2 Indictment is identical to Count Six of the S1 Indictment and is
otherwise unchanged.
II. Disclosures
The Government has already produced to the defense all material that constitutes Rule 16
discovery related to the new allegations and charges contained in the S2 Indictment. In particular,
the Government has from the outset approached its Rule 16 productions in this case as though the
allegations covered a broader time period through at least 2005, rather than limiting those
productions to the time period alleged in the S1 Indictment (1994 to 1997). As a result, the
Government has already produced to the defense all Rule 16 material relevant to the S2 Indictment
of which it is aware in the Prosecution Team’s possession. These Rule 16 materials included
productions from the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Palm Beach Resident
Agency (the “FBI Florida Office”), the FBI New York Office, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for
To assist the defense in preparing for trial on the new allegations contained in the S2
Indictment, today the Government provided the defense with Minor Victim-4’s month and year of
birth. Additionally, in order to aid the defense in its trial preparation and review of the discovery,
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 188 Filed 03/29/21 Page 4 of 5
Page 4
today the Government provided the defense with a list of Bates ranges within the discovery
materials produced to date that are particularly relevant to Minor Victim-4. Although that list is
not exhaustive and does not include every document that may be relevant to Minor Victim-4, it
Additionally, in order to ensure that the defense has adequate time to prepare for trial, the
Government intends to begin its production to the defense of non-testifying witness statements by
April 12, 2021, approximately three months in advance of trial. This production will include the
statements of more than 250 witnesses related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and his
associates in the Government’s possession whom the Government does not currently expect to call
to testify at trial. The Government is continuing to review its files for witness statements and will
produce any additional non-testifying witness statements that come to light on a rolling basis as
Finally, given the expanded charges in the S2 Indictment, the Government is prepared to
produce Jencks Act and Giglio material for witnesses it expects to call at trial six weeks, rather
than four weeks, in advance of trial. These productions, together with the guidance provided to
the defense today regarding discovery relating to Minor Victim-4, should provide ample time for
the defense to prepare for trial and proceed as scheduled on July 12, 2021.
III. Motions
In light of the new allegations and charges contained in the S2 Indictment, the Government
will meet and confer with defense counsel to discuss whether defense counsel wishes to bring
additional motions (or supplement existing motions) based on the S2 Indictment and, if so, to
discuss a proposed schedule for any additional briefing. Although the S2 Indictment should have
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 188 Filed 03/29/21 Page 5 of 5
Page 5
no impact on several of the defendant’s motions, such as the motions to suppress (Motion 3 and
Motion 11), the motion to dismiss the perjury counts (Motion 4), and the motion to strike
allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 as surplusage (Motion 6), the Government does not
anticipate objecting to any defense request to file supplemental briefing regarding any issue that is
implicated by the S2 Indictment. The Government also notes that the S2 Indictment was returned
by a grand jury sitting in Manhattan, rendering moot the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on
Respectfully submitted,
AUDREY STRAUSS
United States Attorney
by: __/s/__________________________
Maurene Comey
Alison Moe
Lara Pomerantz
Andrew Rohrbach
Assistant United States Attorneys
(212) 637-2324