DOJ-OGR-00011376.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page1of3 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca oO 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jeagliuca@hmflaw.com HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN December 16, 2021 VIA Email The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: — United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan, I write in response to this Court’s order. As to the first question, federal law is clear. “No longer, when a lawyer asks a witness whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required (as he was at common law, see Note of Advisory Committee to Fed .R. Evid. 613(a)) to show the statement or disclose its contents to the witness, though he must upon request show it to opposing counsel.” United States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.). As to the second question a statement provable by extrinsic evidence even though the witness affirms that the 3500 material contains the inconsistent statement and also expresses disagreement with the substance. By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement). Thus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has “under any rational theory it might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said.” United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 2002) DOJ-OGR-00011376