Epstein Project

491.pdf

Type
pdf
Source set
house-oversight-doj
Pages
6
Text status
Searchable text available
OCR confidence
0.9257081199796932

Original source

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 491 Filed 11/22/21 Page1of6 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York   The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 21, 2021 BY E-MAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 82 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in reply to the defendant’s motion to exclude Government Exhibit 52. (See Dkt. No. 476). The Court ordered the Government to respond in particular to the defendant’s argument that “Employee-1 cannot authenticate Government Exhibit 52 because Mr. Rodriguez, a former employee, purportedly removed the document from the property before Employee-1 began working for Mr. Epstein.” (/d.) The Second Circuit has “often commented that the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high.” United States v. Al-Moyad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The “proponent of the evidence is not required to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.” United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001). All that is required is “sufficient proof... so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or DOJ-OGR-00007412 

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 491 Filed 11/22/21 Page2of6 identification.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The “standard for authentication is one of ‘reasonable likelihood’ and is ‘minimal.’ The testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be is sufficient to satisfy this standard.” United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). After this low ba…

Open in the interactive archive →