DOJ-OGR-00011372.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page10of13 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 16, 2021 Page 10 truthfulness.” Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). Their testimony is direct evidence about the very conduct at issue in this case—the alleged sexualized massages that form the basis of the charges. Jane says she was abused during group sexualized massages with Mr. Epstein and others and that these other people could confirm her story or back up what she was saying. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to call Eva, Michelle, and Kelly, who will deny being involved in the group sexualized massages, which are the basis of the charges in this case, and will do anything but “back up” or “confirm” what Jane has alleged. These are not “collateral” issues. As the Notes to Rule 608 make clear, the bar on “extrinsic evidence applies only when the sole reason for proffering that evidence is to attack or support the witness’ character for truthfulness.” Fed. R. Evid. 608, Advisory Committee Notes, 2003 Amendments. Here, Eva, Michelle, and Kelly’s testimony is not being offered to attack Jane’s “character for truthfulness.” To the contrary, it is being offered to show that the sexualized massages did not happen. Jane has claimed that Eva, Michelle, and Kelly are essentially eyewitnesses to the abuse she allegedly suffered at the hands of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Eva, Michelle, and Kelly will deny that. The testimony of an “eyewitness” to the very conduct alleged to be criminal is not a “collateral issue.” Rule 608 bars “extrinsic evidence only if the sole purpose for offering the evidence was to prove the witness’ character for veracity.” /d. Contradiction testimony about the conduct at issue, which is what Eva, Michelle, and Kelly will provide, is never collateral. Jd. (“By limiting the application of the Rule to proof of a witness’ character for truthfulness, the amendment leaves the admissibility of extrinsic evidence offered for other grounds of impeachment (such as DOJ-OGR-00011372