HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011447.jpg

10 fd. 12 [3 14 15 16 i) 18 wife) 20 21 22 23 24 25 144 H3vlgiu2 box via the video depositions that we've taken. MR. PAGLIUCA: I thought I was back to my old days as a public defender when I started the practice of law, your Honor. Now I'm arguing an 801(d) (2) (E) motion instead of a defamation case. I think we have to start with the notion that is true, that this is a defamation case in which Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have made a defamatory statement in 2015. In that defamatory statement Ms. Maxwell does not mention any of these individuals and doesn't mention Mr. Epstein, and so the starting point for this is, this is an entirely different issue than Mr. Cassell and his fantastical conspiracy argument here. If we want to stick to the legal issues in this case, I think we first need to understand that there is actually a specific rule of evidence that relates to co-conspirator hearsay exception, and that is Rule 801(d) (2) (E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and significantly, under that rule -- and this is why the cases using Rule 801(d) (2) (E) find indicia of trustworthiness in co-conspirator hearsay statements they are made at or during the course or in furtherance of a conspiracy. And absent that finding, statements of co-conspirators are deemed to be hearsay. So what we're talking about here are not statements purportedly made by any of these individuals in 2000 or 2001. We're talking about statements that they are seeking to (A) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011447