DOJ-OGR-00011377.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page2of3 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 15, 2021 Page 2 (Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 613.04[1] (2d ed. 2001)). To be sure, every time Jane denied making a statement but agreed the 3500 material reflected the statement, she denied its substance to the jury; the prior statement is therefore provable by extrinsic evidence because Jane’s trial testimony—I did not make the prior statement, or I don’t remember making the prior statement, the FBI agent made a typo—would lead to a relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said. See id. And referring Jane to the 3500 material, which was not admitted into evidence, is not sufficient to protect Ms. Maxwell’s right under Rule 613 to prove the statement by extrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence is disallowed only when the witness admits making the prior inconsistent statement. United States v. Jones, 578 F.2d 1332, 1340 (10th Cir. 1978) (“The principle is that where it is sought to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent statement and the witness admits the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is thereby impeached and further testimony is not necessary.”). Where the witness admits the 3500 material contains the statement, but denies making the statement or remembering making the statement, the witness has not “admitted the statement” within the meaning of Rule 613. Cf id. Due to the press of time, Ms. Maxwell’s counsel was not able to indicate each disputed prior inconsistent statement that was read into the record by the deadline of 10:15 p.m. DOJ-OGR-00011377