718.pdf
- Type
- pdf
- Source set
- house-oversight-doj
- Pages
- 3
- Text status
- Searchable text available
- OCR confidence
- 0.9369095935797362
Original source
Extracted text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Pagelof3 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 COHEN & GRESSER LLP +1 212.957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 [email protected] December 5, 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, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: Pursuant to the Court’s Order of earlier today, we respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the government’s request to modify the Court’s proposed limiting instruction concerning the testimony of Witness-3. The government’s request is yet another example of its repeated attempts to relitigate issues that have been decided against them. The Court’s instruction is appropriate and balanced and should not be changed. We should be clear from the outset — we are in this position because the government is insisting on calling a witness who has alleged conduct that is not illegal. The Court has ruled, and the government has itself conceded, that Witness-3 “is not a victim of any of the crimes charged in the Indictment.” 11/19/2021 Op. and Order at 2. The Court has correctly recognized that having Witness-3 describe the details of her sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein would have no probative value because it cannot establish an element of the charged offenses. See id. at 4 (“There is little to no probative value of a witness describing sexual activity when that witness’s testimony regarding the sexual activity cannot form the basis for the conviction of the crimes charged.”); see also 2061438.1 DOJ-OGR-00011330
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Page2of3 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 5, 2021 Page 2 11/10/2021 Tr. at 169 (“I don’t think that’s going to happen with witness three because that sexual conduct is not -- you don’t need to prove that sexual conduct to prove an ele…
Open in the interactive archive →