DOJ-OGR-00006378.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page18 of 54 protecting victim identities outweighs the public interest in access to information because “the public and press will be able to hear the Jane Does’ and Minors’ testimony in full”). II. The Minor Victims’ Prior Consistent Statements Are Admissible for Their Truth If the Defense Challenges Their Credibility If the defendant claims that the Minor Victims’ testimony has been recently fabricated or that the Minor Victims have motives to lie, or if the defense otherwise attacks the credibility of the Minor Victims on another ground, the Government will seek to introduce the Minor Victims’ prior consistent statements to witnesses about their experiences with the defendant and Epstein. A. Applicable Law Under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a prior statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross examination about the statement, the statement is consistent with the declarant’s testimony, and the statement is offered either ‘“(i) to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or (i1) to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground.” Notably, “the prior consistent statement need not be proffered through the testimony of the declarant but may be proffered through any witness who has firsthand knowledge of the statement.” United States v. Caracappa, 614 F.3d 30, 39 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming admission of prior consistent statements to rebut defense insinuation that witness had testified from improper motive). Prior to 2014, a witness’s prior consistent statement was only permitted to rebut a charge of recent fabrication that postdated the prior consistent statement. See Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995). Many courts, however, including the Second Circuit, had developed 17 DOJ-OGR- 00006378