DOJ-OGR-00005787.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 84

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s
thirteen motions in limine, dated October 18, 2021. For the reasons that follow, the defendant’s
motions should be denied.

First, the Government has given notice of a qualified expert who will provide reliable and
relevant opinions, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (See Def. Mot. 3). Second, evidence relating to
Minor Victim-3 is admissible both as direct evidence of the charged crimes, and admissible in the
alternative under Rule 404(b). (See Def. Mot. 4). Third, the Government has provided adequate
notice pursuant to Rule 404(b), and in any event, all evidence for which it has provided such notice
is also admissible as direct evidence of the charged crimes. (See Def. Mot. 2). Fourth, there is no
basis to preclude the introduction of co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
(See Def. Mot. 1). Fifth, Minor Victim-4’s confirmatory identification of the defendant was not
unduly suggestive, and it should not be suppressed. (See Def. Mot. 9). Sixth, the Government’s
various exhibits are relevant, and the Government will authenticate them at trial. (See Def. Mots.
7, 8, 13). Seventh, it is entirely proper for the word “victim” and for discussion of rape to be used
in a trial about the sexual exploitation of minor victims. (See Def. Mots. 11, 12). Eighth, and
finally, the Government does not intend to offer evidence of the defendant’s flight, her false
exculpatory statements, or law enforcement expert testimony in its case in chief, unless the
defendant opens the door or otherwise puts this evidence in issue. (See Def. Mots. 5, 6, 10).

3

DOJ-OGR-00005787