DOJ-OGR-00011350.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page6of9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 6 1461-62. The Court explained that “Anton’s borrowing from his clients, while ethically questionable, is . . . irrelevant to his truthfulness as an expert.” /d. at 1464.1 The same logic applies here. At most, Mr. J engaged in unethical (but not untruthful) conduct that created the risk of harm by others. But none of that conduct involved lying or deceit, and none of it is relevant to his truthfulness. There are other reasons this Court should preclude the government’s cross-examination. First, the Court should consider “whether the testimony of the witness in question is crucial or unimportant.” Nelson, 365 F. Supp. 2d at 390. Here, Mr. J testimony relevant only to a narrow and limited issue—the admissibility of a document whose authenticity and relevance the government appears not to question. Second, the Court should consider “the relationship between the subject matter of the prior deceptive act and that of the instant litigation. As the connection becomes more attenuated, so does the probative value of the evidence.” Davidson Pipe Co. v. Laventhol & Horwath, 120 F.R.D. 455, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). Here, Mr. J conduct concerns ay ME. Phe subject matter of the instant litigation, by contrast, is alleged sexual abuse and trafficking allegedly committed decades ago. There is no connection between “subject matter of the prior [allegedly] deceptive act and that of the instant litigation.” See id. Cases permitting cross-examination about an attorney’s disbarment or suspension are not to the contrary. E.g., United States v. Jackson, 882 F.2d 1444, 1448 (9th Cir. 1989) (no error in ' The Eleventh Circuit also held that the district court had erred in permitting inquiry into professional administrative proceedings against Anton where no probable cause was found, no sanction was imposed, or the proceedings were temporally remote. Ad-Vantage, 37 F.3d at 1464- 65. The evidence was not probative of untruthfulness or was unfairly prejudicial. Jd. DOJ-OGR-00011350