DOJ-OGR-00019133.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 757 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 49 1982 LCOVMAXT THE COURT: Let's take that example, Mr. Pagliuca. MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the problem, I think, is that it is simply highlighting a specific piece of evidence; that this is summation, essentially, and not witness testimony. The witness has no personal knowle witness is simply comparing this to that, be done in summation or should have been who actually was the tes So this could have been done, Ms. Hesse, for example. Compare that those the same phone numbers? Or with Carolyn, dge of the phone calls. The which is what should done with the witness tifying witness with the exhibit. You have that message pad? you know, with message pad with this particular record. phone number? Does that match the This is simply an FBI age pieces of evidence selectively and matches this, this matches that. appropriate under 1006, allows for summary exhibits, which is, fore into evidence. for summary testimony of suppose that coul could have been asked, Yes. Are ld happen. Is that your record? nt who's going to take those then talk about them; this I don't believe that's you know, the rule that xample, but does not allow things that have already been admitted Certainly in the government's closing argument they can do this and they can make whatever arguments they want. PG ew and I just But this is simply a closing argument through a summary witness in the middle of a trial before a very long break, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00019133