DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
767 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
7
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (motion or brief)
File Size:
767 KB
Summary
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 550) from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on December 17, 2021. The Government argues regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence for impeaching a witness, specifically noting that the prior inconsistent statements come from FBI 302 reports written by agents, not the witness herself. The document cites various legal precedents to argue that if a witness admits to an inconsistency found in '3500 material' (Jencks Act material), no further extrinsic evidence is needed.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Witness | Witness |
Subject of potential impeachment via prior statements; gender referred to as 'her' in the phrase 'stand by her trial ...
|
| FBI Agent | Law Enforcement |
Mentioned as the author of the 302 reports/notes, not the witness.
|
| The Judge / The Court | Judiciary |
Presiding officer responsible for managing trial discretion and Rule 613(a).
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| FBI |
Source of the '302 reports' and notes discussed.
|
|
| The Government |
The prosecution (DOJ), arguing the legal points in this document.
|
|
| District Court |
Venue of the trial.
|
|
| 9th Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (cited in case law).
|
|
| 1st Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (cited in case law).
|
|
| 10th Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (cited in case law).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (cited in case law).
|
Timeline (3 events)
2021-12-17
Filing of Document 550 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
SDNY (implied by case number)
The Government
The Court
Relationships (1)
Reference to 'FBI 302 reports or notes that were not written by the witness' but contain 'purported statement[s]'.
Key Quotes (4)
"Here, the alleged prior inconsistent statements are principally from FBI 302 reports or notes that were not written by the witness."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
Quote #1
"Accordingly, the Court should follow the approach described in Marks."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
Quote #2
"if a witness admits making an inconsistent statement in 3500 material, the witness is thereby impeached, and there is no need for further extrinsic evidence."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
Quote #3
"Finally, the Government believes the statements at Tr. 455:3-18, 532:12-17, and 596:7-25"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008420.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,298 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 550 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 3
FBI document, the judge was reasonable in insisting that the witness be allowed to
examine his purported statement before being impeached by it. If the witness denied
it was his statement, the matter could then be resolved by calling the FBI agent who
had compiled the report. We do not think Rule 613(a) was intended to take away
the district judge's discretion to manage the trial in a way designed to promote
accuracy and fairness; and while it would be wrong for a judge to say, "In my court
we apply the common law rule, not Rule 613(a)," he is entitled to conclude that in
particular circumstances the older approach should be used in order to avoid
confusing witnesses and jurors
examine his purported statement before being impeached by it. If the witness denied
it was his statement, the matter could then be resolved by calling the FBI agent who
had compiled the report. We do not think Rule 613(a) was intended to take away
the district judge's discretion to manage the trial in a way designed to promote
accuracy and fairness; and while it would be wrong for a judge to say, "In my court
we apply the common law rule, not Rule 613(a)," he is entitled to conclude that in
particular circumstances the older approach should be used in order to avoid
confusing witnesses and jurors
Id. at 1211; see also Sloman v. Tadlock, 21 F.3d 1462, 1472 (9th Cir. 1994).
Here, the alleged prior inconsistent statements are principally from FBI 302 reports or notes that
were not written by the witness. Accordingly, the Court should follow the approach described in
Marks.
were not written by the witness. Accordingly, the Court should follow the approach described in
Marks.
Second, if a witness admits making an inconsistent statement in 3500 material, the witness
is thereby impeached, and there is no need for further extrinsic evidence. See United Sates v.
Rivera-Donate, 682 F.3d 120, 127 (1st Cir. 2012) (concluding that a prior statement is not even
inconsistent where the witness acknowledges and explains the inconsistency); United States v.
Soundingsides, 825 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987) (denying petition for rehearing). But see
United States v. Strother, 49 F.3d 869, 876 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Extrinsic evidence of a prior
inconsistent statement is more persuasive to a jury than a witness's acknowledgement of
inconsistencies in a prior statement.").1 It is irrelevant that the witness then chooses to stand by
her trial testimony.
is thereby impeached, and there is no need for further extrinsic evidence. See United Sates v.
Rivera-Donate, 682 F.3d 120, 127 (1st Cir. 2012) (concluding that a prior statement is not even
inconsistent where the witness acknowledges and explains the inconsistency); United States v.
Soundingsides, 825 F.2d 1468, 1470 (10th Cir. 1987) (denying petition for rehearing). But see
United States v. Strother, 49 F.3d 869, 876 (2d Cir. 1995) ("Extrinsic evidence of a prior
inconsistent statement is more persuasive to a jury than a witness's acknowledgement of
inconsistencies in a prior statement.").1 It is irrelevant that the witness then chooses to stand by
her trial testimony.
Finally, the Government believes the statements at Tr. 455:3-18, 532:12-17, and 596:7-25
1 The Government believes Strother, which involved a harmless error analysis of two critical
memoranda, is distinguishable from this case. There, the marginal probative value of admitting
the actual statement was high. Here, by contrast, admitting extrinsic evidence of a statement the
witness has admitted contained in an agent's report that the witness has not disputed is minimal.
2
memoranda, is distinguishable from this case. There, the marginal probative value of admitting
the actual statement was high. Here, by contrast, admitting extrinsic evidence of a statement the
witness has admitted contained in an agent's report that the witness has not disputed is minimal.
2
DOJ-OGR-00008420
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document