DOJ-OGR-00011352.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page8of9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 8 to either the subject of this trial (alleged sexual abuse and trafficking) or the subject of his testimony (authenticating and laying foundation for the admission of a document). Accordingly, under Rule 608(b), the government may not question Mr. J about the conduct that was the subject of ys ° But even if the government’s proposed cross-examination were not prohibited by Rule 608(b), it would still be improper under Rule 403. Given the narrow and limited testimony Mr. HE [as to offer, it would be unfairly prejudicial to tar his character with evidence of yg Ree. t would also unfairly mislead the jury and confuse the issues, particularly because the government does not appear to dispute the authenticity of the 1996 Agreement or its relevance. The government’s proposed cross-examination would also create unnecessary delay because, if allowed, Ms. Maxwell will have to examine Mr. BE 2bout the details of his conduct, the relevant regulations of gg the standards of care he employed, the standards of care he did not employ, and whether any individuals or third parties were harmed (they weren’t). See, e.g., Nelson, 365 F. Supp. 2d at 392 (prohibiting cross-examination of police officer who pleaded guilty to administrative charges brought by the NYPD, unrelated to his testimony, because the charges do not “clearly bear on his credibility as a > Assuming this Court disagrees, however, the government must accept whatever answers Mr. Grumbridge gives on the stand. Rule 608(b) unambiguously provides that “extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct in order to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness.” Fed. R. Evid. 608(b); Whitehead, 618 F.2d at 529 (“FRE 608(b) quite clearly states that specific instances of conduct for the purpose of attacking or supporting the credibility of a witness ‘may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.’ The anticipatory ruling of the district court that the [attorney] suspension document was admissible was erroneous.”). DOJ-OGR-00011352