DOJ-OGR-00012029.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 264 415 LC1VMAX1 The only question in any specific instance is is it impeaching, and is it a prior inconsistent statement. We have to deal with the rules around a prior inconsistent statement. It wasn't like you had deposition testimony. You had an FBI agent's write-up of notes which the witness was confronted with and said it was a mistake. Again, that wasn't moved in, but we can deal with that as it comes. There could be -- not here, but there could be 608 issues if you're trying to use extrinsic evidence. If what we have is impeaching by contradiction, impeachment of what the witness testified to on the stand, then it's not going to be a 608 issue. MR. EVERDELL: If we're impeaching the witness, yes, that's right. And I just want to address the issue of impeaching with extrinsic evidence, which I know the government has raised. That rule is -- and the cases they cite -- THE COURT: I know you cited Rule 613. I hadn't understood their argument to be about 613. MR. EVERDELL: They raised in their papers the notion that you can't impeach -- or you can't use extrinsic evidence to impeach. But the rule there and the cases they've cited stand for the unremarkable proposition that you can't impeach -- or you can't use extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter. THE COURT: Correct. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012029