701.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 10
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.933270200510629
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page1of10 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 7, 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 in response to the defense letter motion to preclude testimony by Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is no reason to exclude any of Flatley’s expected testimony or to delay his cross- examination. The Government believes that Flatley’s expected testimony does not constitute expert opinion testimony. However, even if some aspect of his testimony were characterized as expert opinion, the Government has provided sufficient notice for such testimony and Flatley is undisputedly qualified to give it. And there is certainly no reason to preclude his testimony based on the defendant’s late-breaking objection. I. Factual Background On September 15, 2021, the Government wrote the defendant a letter notifying her that it DOJ-OGR-00011180
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page2of10 expected to call Flatley as a witness at this trial. The Government explained that, although the Government believed that this testimony would not require admission through Rule 702, the Government nonetheless provided notice in an abundance of caution. In addition to the summary of Flatley’s testimony identified in the defendant’s letter (Def. Letter at 1-2), the Government identified four cases in which Flatley “previously testified regarding similar topics,” including metadata and hash values. See Trial Tr. at 935-36, United States v. Hirst, 15 Cr. 643 (PKC) (describing metadata); Trial Tr. at 292-93, United Stat…
Open in the interactive archive →