DOJ-OGR-00016750.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO Ww a OY 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 197 LCFCmaxl repeatedly relied on and is about impeachment by prior inconsistent statement cross examination, n extrinsic evidence a rule 613(a), ot introduction of a prior statement which uses di 2562 Fferent language on as s it seeks to do here. So the opportunity to explain the statement should consist of deny making the stat Practice and Procedu Edition 2021. Citin Circuit case. Now I'm goi court has discretion requirement before t ement. That's right in Miller, something more than just the opportunity to admit or 28 Federal re Evidence, g a Seventh ng to quote to require Section 6205, Circuit case and an from Gulani again. A satisfaction of Note 1, Second Eleventh trial the latter h xtrinsic evidence i alternatively to per witness after In a case c fered or s of mit it to be satisfied by recalling the alled Surdow, S-u-r-d-o-w, the extrinsic evidence is received. the Second Circuit stated that the district court has broad discretion to exclude extrinsic im while the witness wa witness was permitte v. Surdow, 121 F.App authorities. Ther peachment evidenc s on the stand or a d to leave the cour x. 898 (2d Cir. the Court will fore, objection as to all proposed prior inconsis 2005), sustain that was not revealed t least before the That's United States collecting the government's tent statements to which the witness was not presented with the statement to SOUTH ERN D STR CT REPORT ERS, (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00016750