Court filing argues admissibility of alleged sex conspiracy evidence involving Maxwell and Giuffre

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 142 H3vlgiu2 The final point that the LiButti case directs you to consider is whether admitting the evidence will advance the search for truth. And here we have a conspiracy, and I'm using that term not as a lawyer but as a layperson for this purpose. Webster's defines to conspire means to join together ina secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of a secret agreement. And so we want to present the conspirator. Now we think that makes the case that this is highly relevant and also appropriate for an adverse inference. Again, your Honor could wait to rule on this at trial, but we think it's clear-cut now. Of course once you determine that something's relevant, you then have to consider possible prejudicial effect. Obviously this is a case in which sex allegations are going to be at their heart. It's not like we have a business dispute where somebody wants to throw in sex abuse. We want to prove, in a case involving a sex conspiracy, what the conspirators have to say. And there's no prejudice then to Maxwell in the sense of unfair prejudice. He can ask whatever questions they deem appropriate as well. But the absence of the co-conspirators is of course highly prejudicial to Ms. Giuffre. Naturally the jury is going to wonder, you said Kellen was reporting to Maxwell. Where is Kellen? That's going to be the first thing they'll say when they go back into the jury room. Where are these people? And that's what SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011445