DOJ-OGR-00011136.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document691 Filed 11/22/21 Page5of7 investigation are all irrelevant” to Ms. Maxwell’s guilt. /d. at 19 (quoting United States v. Duncan, No. 18-CR-289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)). The Court concludes that the expected topics of Gershman’s testimony—investigation, witness preparation, media contact, being neutral and accurate, and relationships with victims—all fall within the rubric of attacking the thoroughness of the investigation rather than being probative of Ms. Maxwell’s guilt of the crimes charged. In short, this testimony would run afoul of the instruction that the jury will receive that “the government is not on trial.” /d. at 23 (quoting United States v. Knox, 687 F. App’x 51, 54 (2d Cir. 2017)). The Court notes that a court in this district recently excluded Gershman’s testimony in a civil case in which he would have similarly criticized the SEC’s investigation, including the use of cooperating witnesses. SEC v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., No. 19-CV-4355 (VM) (GWG), 2021 WL 3418829 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2021). That case differs from this one in several respects, but that court’s basic reasoning informs and supports the Court’s decision here. The Defense argues that the Court “expressly denied” prohibiting the Defense from calling an expert witness like Gershman. Def. Br. at 17. Tellingly, the Defense quotes no language from the Court for this proposition and instead cites only those pages of the Court’s oral ruling in which the Court explained that it “will permit relevant cross-examination of the government’s witnesses.” Nov. 1 Tr. at 27. This language in no fashion supports the Defense’s request to admit an expert to testify about government investigative techniques. The Court reiterates, however, that it will permit the Defense to pursue “lines of cross-examination of government witnesses [that] would be relevant to impeach a witness by suggesting bias or otherwise implicating their credibility,” which could include the Defense’s theory of witnesses’ motives for “implicating Ms. Maxwell after Jeffrey Epstein’s death.” Jd. at 28-29. DOJ-OGR-00011136