DOJ-OGR-00018275.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Direct Page 174 of 236 and we but we would like an opportunity to examine the case Law and develop our the thinking here is that the feel a bit they could have raised this objection the witness who could have looked at the corroborating And I You're welcome to brief suppose you [ have it; factual disjointedness between testimony. could be heard on the fF we had the response would to have to see what LC3KMAX6 Parkinson — 1 with my colleagues with that, 2 to brief that issue, your Honor. 3 understand the Court's concern. 4 THE COURT: To brief it? 5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, 6 that your Honor is referring to, consider it, 7 argument potentially further. 8 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, 9 defense has had these exhibits for weeks, 10 sandbagged here becaus 11 in their motions in limine and instead they did it after we had 12 finished our direct of 13 these photographs. 14 MS. MOE: n our view, part of 15 impact is that we didn't show these photographs to the victim 16 and —- 17 THE COURT: [ understand that. 18 still can if you want to. 19 no issue with that. There is a 20 what you're seeking to enter and based on that 21 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, if 22 issue of sandbagging: This was not sandbagging. 23 raised this at the motion in limine stage, 24 have guite rightly been, we're going 25 happens at trial, SOUTHERN DISTR CT REPORT ERS, (212) 805-0300 because it's their responsibility to lay a 1078 DOJ-OGR-00018275