DOJ-OGR-00011409.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 731-1 Filed 07/14/22 BANISH SHEA & The Honorable Alison J. Nathan BOYLE December 6, 2021 LLP Page 3 Jane will prevent her from committing a crime that would cause death or great bodily harm. Accordingly, Mr. Glassman cannot testify about any communication he allegedly had with Jane without violating Rule 1.6. Additionally, Mr. Glassman's testimony would be wholly irrelevant. Ms. Maxwell claims the statement in Ms. Moe’s email is relevant for only two reasons: (1) “Jane’s motive to cooperate and testify,” and (2) “her memory and capacity as a witness since she cannot recall a highly consequential conversation she just had months ago.” (Maxwell Motion at 1-2). Both alleged reasons are based on a faulty premise and are factually untrue. The August 17, 2021 email from Ms. Moe expressly states that the alleged statement at issue occurred before Ms. Maxwell was criminally charged — not “just ... months ago” in August 2021 -- as Ms. Maxwell appears to insinuate. Ms. Maxwell was arrested and charged on July 2, 2020 — more than a year before the email from Ms. Moe was written. Jane's civil case settled on December 11, 2020—8 months before Ms. Moe’s email was written and approximately a year before she testified at this trial. Accordingly, once Jane made the decision to settle her civil case in December of 2020, there was no case to “help” in August of 2021 when the email was written or a year later when she testified at this trial. Further, Ms. Maxwell contends that because Jane testified on cross-examination that she did not know that cooperating with the government would help her civil case, Mr. Glassman’s purported statement to Ms. Moe in August of 2021 would somehow be relevant in shedding light on that issue. Not only would this be improper impeachment and an attempt to force an attorney to take a position adverse to his client, it is also misleading. DOJ-OGR-00011409