DOJ-OGR-00011655.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) Ww a OY 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LBNAMAXTps And it's a di fferent postures, propose an instruction Document 739 and therefore di Filed 08/10/22 fferent Page 34 of 43 34 But it seems to me these witnesses are in very risk of prejudice. that I fferent instruction precisely think gets to the point. For this reason, that enticement charge with respect charge xe) with respect to that witness, confusing, theory into the charge. is any additional that witness, that sexual conduct can be relevant evidence of to violate New York law. the So I do think some some limiting instruction is necessary. I won't make it and I won't allow the government to just insert its But I'll take a look to see if there clarification. That would be helpful. MR. ROHRBACH: Just in response to Mr. Everdell's point, today above letter, that' THI! EE] that the government intends to put on, illegal sexual activity under New Mexico law, the releva your Honor, that the sexual ac Sa COU I'm not going to -- again, nt age of consent. As we briefed the government is not prepared to concede tivity that occurred in New Mexico was in our fF New Mexico state law. complex question of RT: So, I mean, if That's not how you charged it here. charged pursuant to New Mexico law. is saying is, you're going to show that not going to misin SOUTHERN D shouldn't there's that's not how you charged it. Right? a factual question as to whether that was then certainly You haven't But if give that charge because in it was illegal sexual activity -- what the government fact form the jury that it wasn't illegal under STR CT RE PORTERS, (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011655