700.pdf

Type

pdf

Source set

house-oversight-doj

Pages

6

Text status

Searchable text available

OCR confidence

0.9374965269884281

Original source

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 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 December 2, 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, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter to highlight two exhibits on which the Court has reserved, and which the Government now expects to offer at trial tomorrow: Government Exhibit 52, the contact book, and Government Exhibit 606, the household manual. 1. Applicable Law 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-00011174 

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 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 bar is satisfied, “the other party then remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence, to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative in…

Open in the interactive archive →