DOJ-OGR-00012015.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LBUCmax7 Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 243 of 247 402 1 and put it together by himself. 2 THE COURT: You can cross him on that. 3 MS. STERNHEIM: understand that. I'm not 4 challenging. I'm just saying that I think the full issue 5 should be addressed at the conclusion of this witness's 6 testimony. 7 THE COURT: All right. We'll address it at the 8 conclusion of the witness's testimony. I understand the 9 government's point to be that the prongs of the rule are both 10 put in issue by the defense's opening, attacking, suppose, 11 all of the witness's credibility on memory, on recent 12 fabrication, and monetary incentive. So I suppose the 13 government's position, if I understand it, is that in light of 14 that opening, any prior consistent statement of any of the 15 witnesses comes in. Is that the contention? 16 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Defense counsel has kicked 17 the door wide open. So under both prongs of the rule, all 18 prior consistent statements of the witnesses in this case are 19 admissible. 20 THE COURT: Do you anticipate beyond the next witness 21 the same issue occurring? 22 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, with respect to other 23 victims in this case. 24 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, your view is that the 25 opening hasn't sufficiently put the specific credibility of SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212%) 805-0220 DOJ-OGR-00012015