DOJ-OGR-00006391.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 31 of 54 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (affirming a district court that sustained an objection during a defense summation). Accordingly, issues like the “length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that [the defendant] was not initially a target of the investigation are all irrelevant.” United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289 (SHS), 2019 WL 2210663, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2019); see United States v. Aleynikov, 785 F. Supp. 2d 46, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“As a general matter, the quality and scope of the Government’s investigation are not appropriate lines of examination ... .”), rev’d on other grounds by 676 F. 3d. 71 (2d Cir. 2012). 2. Discussion It is not relevant or probative for the defense to elicit evidence or make argument about investigative steps taken or untaken by the Government, either in this investigation or the Florida Investigations, or about the length of those investigations. The issue before the jury is whether the admissible evidence before it demonstrates the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The particular investigative steps used (or not used) by the Government, and the length of the investigation, are wholly irrelevant to question. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Rather, the jury’s decision should be fixed on “the evidence or lack of evidence that had been presented at trial.” Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d at 52. The defendant should be precluded from eliciting testimony about facts the jury cannot properly consider, and which do not bear on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Moreover, whatever marginal relevance a discussion of investigative steps or the length of an investigation may have is outweighed by the risk of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is routine practice in this District to give an instruction that “the government is not on trial.” See, e.g., United States v. Knox, 687 F. App’x 51, 54-55 (2d 30 DOJ-OGR-00006391