DOJ-OGR-00011428.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page5of25
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
November 22, 2021
Page 5
A. The constitutional backdrop.
“Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause... , or in the Compulsory Process or
Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants
a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690
(1986) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)); see U.S. Const. amends. V,
VI. A court violates a defendant’s right to present a defense when it excludes competent and
reliable evidence that is central to the defense. See Crane, 476 U.S. at 690. The exclusion of such
evidence “deprives a defendant of the basic right to have the prosecutor’s case encounter and
‘survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing.’” /d. at 690-91 (quoting United States v.
Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656 (1984)).
The Constitution also affords Ms. Maxwell the right to confront her accusers. U.S.
amend. VI; Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988). “[A] criminal defendant states a
violation of the Confrontation Clause by showing that [she] was prohibited from engaging in
otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed to show a prototypical form of bias on the part
of the witness, and thereby ‘to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors . . . could
appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.’” Delaware v. Van
Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318 (1974)). “Cross-
examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of [her]
testimony are tested.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. The importance of cross-examination cannot be
overstated where, as here, the government’s proof depends almost entirely on the uncorroborated
testimony of the accusers. Poventud v. City of New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL
1062186, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015) (“Second Circuit case law . . . clearly establishe[s] that
DOJ-OGR-00011428
Extracted Information
Document Details
| Filename | DOJ-OGR-00011428.jpg |
| File Size | 711.5 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 93.4% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,074 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-03 18:07:57.758748 |