708.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 15
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.9351390431512185
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 708 Filed 07/12/22 Page1of15 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 15, 2021 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 response to the defendant’s letter regarding prior inconsistent statements. This letter sets out the Government’s position on the defendant’s proposed prior inconsistent statements. The Government understands that the defendant is ensuring that several law enforcement officers are available tomorrow to testify tomorrow about prior inconsistent statements, although they are not among the defense’s first few witnesses. The Government respectfully requests that the Court resolve the disputed statements before those witnesses testify. As the Government has told the defense repeatedly, the Government agrees to stipulate to the content of notes or FBI 302 reports in those instances in which the Government agrees they in fact contain prior inconsistent statements, as set forth below, and would likely do so for other statements should the Court DOJ-OGR-00011268
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 708 Filed 07/12/22 Page2of15 conclude they are admissible. Accordingly, resolving these issues will likely obviate the need for the defense to call those law enforcement officers and significantly save the jury’s time. ! L Applicable Law Prior inconsistent statements are generally admissible for impeachment purposes only, see Fed. R. Evid. 613, and are inadmissible hearsay for substantive purposes unless they were made at “a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A); see Santos v. Murdock, 243 F.3d 681, 684 (2d Cir. 2001). In…
Open in the interactive archive →