DOJ-OGR-00014358.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 54 of 95 2792 LCI1MAX1 1 not the violation of New York law. So that is our objection to 2 that. 3 MR. ROHRBACH: Well, I think, understanding that 4 Mr. Everdell is I think preserving the earlier objection about 5 Annie's testimony, as far as the suggestion to resolve the 6 redacting issue is just to remove her age from this clause, 7 think that would be fine and the jury can make its own 8 conclusions about, you know, Annie's age and how it relates to y) the offense. 10 THE COURT: [ understand the broader suggestion, but 11 in light of my earlier conclusion, this third overt act would 12 read, "In or about 1996, Maxwell provided Annie with an 13 unsolicited massage in New Mexico." 14 MR. ROHRBACH: That's my understanding of 15 Mr. Everdell's suggestion, and the government would be fine 16 with that. 17 MR. EVERDELL: And I guess to clarify, Judge, I'm 18 understanding the Court's logic to be that the testimony of 19 Annie about the topless massage can be considered by the jury 20 as evidence of the conspiracy to violate New York law. 21 THE COURT: That's right. 22 MR. EVERDELL: Okay. And understanding that's the 23 Court's logic and ruling, then we would -- but then we would 24 like the redaction. We preserve our objection from before, 25 but -- yes. SOUTH ERN D STR CT R (212) BPORTERS, P. 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014358