517.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 4
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.9355537149963967
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document517 _ Filed 11/30/21 Page1of4 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 30, 2021 BY ECF 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, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter in response to the question whether the defense is required to disclose exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence through Government witnesses as “impeachment.” While the defendant need not disclose exhibits being introduced solely for impeachment, the defendant may not circumvent Rule 16’s disclosure requirements by describing defense exhibits as being used for impeachment when in fact they are properly considered part of the defendant’s case in chief. Further, the introduction of extrinsic evidence for the purpose of impeachment is narrowly circumscribed, as set forth below. Rule 16(b) expressly requires disclosure of items the defense “intends to use . . . in the defendant’s case-in-chief at trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A). The defendant’s “case in chief” is not a formalist term for the events that begin the moment the Government rests. Rather, “where DOJ-OGR-00008190
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document517 Filed 11/30/21 Page2of4 a defendant cross-examines a government witness to buttress her theory of the case, rather than to impeach the testimony given by the witness on direct examination, the cross-examination is properly seen as part of the defendant’s case-in-chief.” United States v. Napout, No. 15 Cr. 252 (PKC), 2017 WL 6375729, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2017) (quoting United States v. Hsai, No. 98 Cr. 75 (PLF), 2000 WL 195067, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2000)) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]his interpretatio…
Open in the interactive archive →