DOJ-OGR-00005572.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page 18 of 40 that might be relevant to the jury’s deliberations as to the credibility or knowledgeability of the witness.” Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at *1 (citing Marti, 421 F.2d at 1266). And where the Government establishes a legitimate reason to limit disclosure of identifying information in open Court, the defendant must “demonstrate a ‘particularized need’ for disclosure.” Jd. Here, both of those interests are satisfied. The defendant knows who the Minor Victims and other witnesses are and has conducted a fulsome investigation, as shown by the defendant’s brief in opposition. And the jury, which will also know the true names of the Minor Victims, will fully understand whatever information the defense elicits on cross-examination or at trial. For instance, as the Government has said, the defense is free to elicit the fact that ee PY (Compare Def. Opp. 21, with Gov’t Mot. at 15 n.6 (“The Government ee. The only substantive limit the Government proposes on the defendant’s ability to elicit information is certain detailed personally identifying information, none of which is relevant or necessary to elicit at trial. (See Gov’t Mot. at 15 & n.6). Citing general cases about the Confrontation Clause, the defense describes a series of other lines of cross-examination they might like to elicit, including MO | 7) ee °° ee. and (d) the identities of the lawyers for the Minor Victims. (Def. Opp. at 21- 22). Some of these topics are objectionable for other reasons. But for purposes of this motion, the defendant must show that she requires the true names of the Minor Victims to be publicly disclosed 17 DOJ-OGR-00005572