DOJ-OGR-00012016.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO Ww a OY 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LBUCmax7 Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 244 of 247 403 each of the witnesses in issue such that the rule would allow prior consistent statements? a particular statement testimony, but I don cross. It seems to me because you asked the jury essen witnesses' testimony as being mot being offered is consistent with know that it has to be with respec it has to be with respect to direc tially to evaluate all of tivated by memory issues, suppose the question is whether the ct to — the manipulation, and monetary motivations. So I think that's the issue. I'll certainly think about that question and then consider the -- I think this is a useful example. I'm happy to hear I mean, it strikes me that's right, but I'm happy to hear why that wouldn't be right. MS. STERNHEIM: 'm not suggesting, I'm just asking seeking to pr that is the support eclude, for an opportunity to dovetail her for the next wit I'm just asking issue of prior consistency. THE COURT: testimony with the tness's testimony. statement I'm not for an opportunity on the We can pick this up in the morning, but the government made a specific proffer o based on direct testimony, witness is testifying, the prior tes MS. compare it. timony. anticipated testimony which is to say -- I mean, when the you could say that's not consistent with STERNHE M: THE COURT: I got it. 'm just asking Is that what you want to do? for an opportunit am not standing here saying I'm opposing it. So it's not about the cross of SOUTH ERN D (212) 805-0300 STRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ty to DOJ-OGR-00012016