DOJ-OGR-00008419.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 550 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 3

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 16, 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, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

Dear Judge Nathan:

The Government writes in response to the Court’s order of December 16, 2021.

First, Rule 613(b) provides that extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent
statement is admissible only if the witness is given “an opportunity to explain or deny the
statement.” The Rule thus provides the district court with the discretion to require that the alleged
inconsistent statement itself be shown to the witness, in order to afford the witness the opportunity
to explain it. United States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210-11 (7th Cir. 1987). As the Seventh
Circuit has explained, this is particularly important in the context of documents likes FBI reports,
that are not necessarily verbatim transcription of the witness’s alleged statement:

If defense counsel had been reading from a transcript of a previous trial or
deposition, there would have been no justification for the district judge's procedure.
But since a statement appearing in an interview report could easily be garbled, yet
seem authoritative when read from a paper that the jury would infer was an official

1

DOJ-OGR-00008419