DOJ-OGR-00005004.jpg

Cétash: 2Q20r OCR ReP AON Demument220 ArbelOes16y221 Pategeé dfof 4 Honorable Alison J. Nathan August 18, 2021 Page 4 Insofar as the defendant claims that identification of uncharged co-conspirators is necessary for her to interpose objections to the admissibility of co-conspirator statements (Dkt. No. 291 at 10-11), such an argument “misunderstands the hearsay exception for the statements of co-conspirators.” Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 722. The hearsay exception is “rooted in agency law and is not constrained by the text of an indictment.” Jd. Accordingly, a co-conspirator statement may be admissible even if the conspiracy is not one charged in the indictment. And if the Government is not required to charge a conspiracy in the indictment in order to introduce statements by the defendant’s co-conspirators in that conspiracy, it surely cannot be required to provide a bill of particulars as to a conspiracy charged in the indictment for that same purpose. See id. at 723. In sum, the Government respectfully submits that the Court should not require the Government to provide an exhaustive list of co-conspirators, whether in a bill of particulars or otherwise. Respectfully submitted, AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney By: /s/ Alison Moe / Maurene Comey / Lara Pomerantz / Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Tel: (212) 637-2225 Ce: All counsel of record (by ECF) were only two co-conspirators or identify any others, which would “meaningfully alter the nature of the charges”); United States v. Akhavan, No. 20 Cr. 188, 2020 WL 2555333, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2020) (ordering the Government to identify alleged co-conspirators who “represented several distinct organizations” over three years, “creat[ing] the possibility that different co- conspirators may have been involved at different times,” presenting a high risk of surprise). DOJ-OGR-00005004