DOJ-OGR-00011113.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document690 _ Filed 11/19/21 Page5of23 described above. See Gov. Supp. Ltr. at 12 (Nov. 5, 2021). For example, in a recent murder trial, the Court permitted the nephew of the victim to describe his uncle’s wounds because the nephew, who had served as a caretaker, had some information that was not cumulative of the medical records. The Court expressly cautioned the Government that it would not permit emotional testimony, or the probative value would be outweighed by the prejudice: [I]t's clearly a 403 line here. You have cumulativeness with the medical testimony, you have graphic descriptions from a relative who cared for the victim which could very well produce sympathies and prejudice that would interfere with and overcome the medical facts that you need for purposes of proving causation. .. . | am certainly going to cut off the line at any graphic descriptions. To the extent that walking this person through questions regarding the medical condition is emotional testimony, I think we are — it will have to be stopped. United States v. Berry, No. 20 Cr. 84 (AJN), Dkt. No. 138 at 13; see also id. at 15. In that case, the Government agreed that the line had to be carefully guarded. /d. at 13-14. The transcript of that ruling is attached for counsel’s reference. See Exhibit A. The Court cautions the Government to proceed carefully because the Court will not allow testimony that steps over this 403 line. The Court will allow some leading questions for this portion of the testimony to help ensure that it does not. Finally, the Court concludes that this witness’s anticipated testimony as to the sex trafficking counts is inadmissible. Although the Government’s letter points to some relevant direct evidence that this witness could provide regarding these counts, see Gov. Supp. Ltr. at 6-7, any minimal probative value of this evidence is diminished by its remoteness in time to the charged sex trafficking conspiracy, which is alleged to have run from 2001 to 2004. This evidence does not face the same problem as it relates to the Mann Act conspiracies, which are alleged to have begun in 1994 (and when the Defendant allegedly began her relationship with this witness.). Because the risk of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of DOJ-OGR-00011113