DOJ-OGR-00011349.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page5of9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 5 In evaluating the probity of specific instances of conduct, courts consider numerous factors, including “whether the testimony of the witness in question is crucial or unimportant, the extent to which the evidence is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, the extent to which the evidence is also probative of other relevant matters, the extent to which the circumstances surrounding the specific instances of conduct are similar to the circumstances surrounding the giving of the witness’s testimony, [and] the nearness or remoteness in time of the specific instances to trial. Nelson, 365 F. Supp. 2d at 390. Mr. SN alleged conduct, while perhaps unethical, is not probative of his truth uc. lS . None of the conduct is relevant to Mr. J character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and all the conduct is inadmissible under Rule 608(b). The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Ad-Vantage Telephone Directory Consultants, Inc. v. GTE Directories Corp. makes the point. In that case, Ad-Vantage called Leonard Anton as an expert witness regarding lost profits /d. at 1462. Anton was a CPA and lawyer. /d. Over objection, the court permitted GTEDC to cross-examine Anton about, among other things, his borrowing money from clients. /d. at 1462-63. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, even though as a consequence of the reversal the case would have to be tried for a fourth time. Id. at DOJ-OGR-00011349