Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00215.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 10 outside of the scope of Dr. Esplin’s opinion. While Plaintiff may wish to waive this requirement of the rules of procedure and evidence, Ms. Maxwell does not. Regardless, any decisions Ms. Maxwell and the undersigned counsel decide to make concerning their presentation of the defense and which witness to call is ours alone to make. There is no requirement that a party call a designated expert to testify if they choose not to do so at the time of trial. Such strategic decisions are solely in the province of the parties and their counsel. If Dr. Esplin is presented as a rebuttal witness by the defense, he will appear live. If he is not, then there is no rebuttal witness, and none to cross examine. ll. WAS NOT PROPERLY “REFRESHED” AND THE READING OF THE HEARSAY POLICE REPORT IS INADMISSABLE The use of the deposition testimony of MJ. and the reading or summary of hearsay statement in the Police Report sought to be admitted through counsel’s questions is simply improper. As a small sampling of the designated testimony makes clear, there was no proper “refreshing” of recollection: Q. Do you remember how old you were when you met Jeffrey Epstein? A. Sixteen or 17. Q. Okay. And have you reviewed — A. I may have been 15. I don't recall. I apologize. Q. If you told the police officer 16, you were telling the truth? A. At the time, they were fresh. Q. Okay. After speaking to the police or while speaking to the police, do you remember telling them that you're not safe because you're talking about this? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. EDWARDS: Q. And that you had heard Jeffrey Epstein making threats to people on the telephone? MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to form and foundation.