DOJ-OGR-00006397.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 37 of54 reasons for the prosecution have no bearing whatsoever on the jury’s proper function. If the facts gave rise to a viable claim of improper motive, the proper course would have been to file a motion to dismiss the Indictment on those grounds. But the defendant did not do so, and she may not now pursue that theory before the jury. Evidence or argument about Epstein’s death while awaiting prosecution is also irrelevant and substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. The fact that Epstein died while awaiting prosecution more than fifteen years after the charged conduct is entirely irrelevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Introducing that evidence to the jury and arguing that it somehow relates to the Government’s case would only confuse the jury about their task and unfairly prejudice the Government should the defense then imply or argue that it relates to the Government’s motives for prosecution. Vv. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not Witnesses at This Trial At trial, the Government expects that witnesses will testify about individuals who are not witnesses at trial, and whose out-of-court statements will not be offered for their truth. For example, witnesses will testify about Minor Victim-5 and Minor Victim-6, who will not be witnesses at trial. The Court should preclude the defense from attempting to impeach the credibility of individuals who will not be witnesses at trial, and whose credibility is therefore irrelevant. An “essential safeguard” of a fair trial is the “right to place the witness in his proper setting and put the weight of his testimony and his credibility to a test.” United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, 723 (2d Cir. 1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, 36 DOJ-OGR-00006397