DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
605 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (letter/motion reply)
File Size:
605 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated December 15, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. It presents defense arguments supporting the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Mr. Hamilton regarding statements made by 'Kate,' arguing that this evidence proves bias and is not a collateral matter. The text cites various legal precedents to refute the government's objections.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alison J. Nathan | Judge |
Addressee of the letter (The Honorable)
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Ghislaine Maxwell; proponent of the testimony
|
| Mr. Hamilton | Witness |
Potential witness whose testimony regarding 'Kate' is being debated
|
| Kate | Witness/Accuser |
Person whose statements and potential bias are the subject of Mr. Hamilton's proposed testimony
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government |
Prosecution/DOJ, opposing the testimony
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Court of Appeals cited in case law
|
|
| 5th Cir. |
Court of Appeals cited in case law
|
|
| D.C. Cir. |
Court of Appeals cited in case law
|
Timeline (1 events)
December 15, 2021
Relationships (2)
Document discusses 'Kate's statements to Mr. Hamilton' regarding bias.
Ms. Maxwell proposes testimony of Mr. Hamilton.
Key Quotes (4)
"What Ms. Maxwell proposes for the testimony of Mr. Hamilton is exactly what the law allows."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
Quote #1
"“[B]ias or interest of a witness is not a collateral issue, and extrinsic evidence is admissible thereon.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
Quote #2
"Conspicuously, the government cites no authority for the proposition that Ms. Maxwell cannot ask Mr. Hamilton about Kate’s statements to him."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
Quote #3
"Kate’s statements to Mr. Hamilton are neither specific instances of conduct under Rule 608 nor prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,655 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 555 Filed 12/18/21 Page 3 of 5
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 15, 2021
Page 3
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
December 15, 2021
Page 3
Blackwood, 456 F.2d 526, 530 (2d Cir. 1972)). What Ms. Maxwell proposes for the testimony of
Mr. Hamilton is exactly what the law allows.
Mr. Hamilton is exactly what the law allows.
The government is quite wrong to suggest that these statements are collateral matters.
“[B]ias or interest of a witness is not a collateral issue, and extrinsic evidence is admissible
thereon.” United States v. Haggett, 438 F.2d 396, 399 (2d Cir. 1971). This is not controversial.
E.g., United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 550 (5th Cir. 1979) (“The bias of a witness,
however, is not a collateral matter and the party examining the witness is not bound by his denial
of acts tending to show his bias.”); United States v. Robinson, 530 F.2d 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir.
1976) (“Bias is never classified as a collateral matter which lies beyond the scope of inquiry, nor
as a matter on which an examiner is required to take a witness’s answer.”).²
“[B]ias or interest of a witness is not a collateral issue, and extrinsic evidence is admissible
thereon.” United States v. Haggett, 438 F.2d 396, 399 (2d Cir. 1971). This is not controversial.
E.g., United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 550 (5th Cir. 1979) (“The bias of a witness,
however, is not a collateral matter and the party examining the witness is not bound by his denial
of acts tending to show his bias.”); United States v. Robinson, 530 F.2d 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir.
1976) (“Bias is never classified as a collateral matter which lies beyond the scope of inquiry, nor
as a matter on which an examiner is required to take a witness’s answer.”).²
Conspicuously, the government cites no authority for the proposition that Ms. Maxwell
cannot ask Mr. Hamilton about Kate’s statements to him. Gov. Letter, pp 9-10. And although the
government’s letter is not entirely clear, see Gov. Letter, p 9 n.3, the government apparently does
not invoke either Rule 608 or Rule 613 in support of its request to prevent the jury from learning
of Kate’s bias and motive. That’s for a good reason. Kate’s statements to Mr. Hamilton are
neither specific instances of conduct under Rule 608 nor prior inconsistent statements under Rule
613.
cannot ask Mr. Hamilton about Kate’s statements to him. Gov. Letter, pp 9-10. And although the
government’s letter is not entirely clear, see Gov. Letter, p 9 n.3, the government apparently does
not invoke either Rule 608 or Rule 613 in support of its request to prevent the jury from learning
of Kate’s bias and motive. That’s for a good reason. Kate’s statements to Mr. Hamilton are
neither specific instances of conduct under Rule 608 nor prior inconsistent statements under Rule
613.
__________
² [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
² [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
DOJ-OGR-00008433
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document