DOJ-OGR-00006429.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 _ Filed 11/12/21 Page 12 of 69 C. The Court Should Reject the Government’s Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination Unless and until the prosecution has established its prima facie case, the defendant “is not called upon to determine whether to produce documents and material normally privileged. It imposes a price on the exercise of a constitutional right to require a pre-trial decision of the trial tactics which are normally determined by a defense lawyer following the completion of the prima facie case.” United States v. Fratello, 44 F.R.D. 444, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). Moreover, the decision to prosecute someone criminally carries with it certain consequences: Under our constitutional system, a criminal defendant—need not do anything at all to defend himself, and certainly he cannot be required to help convict himself. Rather he has an absolute, unqualified right to compel the State to investigate its own case, find its own witnesses, prove its own facts, and convince the jury through its own resources. Throughout the process the defendant has a fundamental right to remain silent, in effect challenging the State at every point to: “Prove it!” United States v. Wilkerson, 388 F. Supp. 3d 969, 972 (E.D. Tenn. 2019) (quoting Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 112 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting)). Much of the government’s argument is directed at causing the defense to provide a preview of its strategy and the substance of defense cross examination which should be rejected by the Court. I. THE GOVERNMENT’S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE The government proposes various false or partial names for some of the accusers and witnesses. The request is not supported by any factual declaration. No evidence exists suggesting that any witness has been or would be threatened by Ms. Maxwell. None of the witnesses are DOJ-OGR-00006429