DOJ-OGR-00006765.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5/7 of 84 Government planned to offer at trial as admissions of a defendant” under Fed. R. Evid. 801). Accordingly, the Government argued that “the defense will receive notice of any co-conspirator statements that the Government may seek to introduce through witness statements” in its Jencks Act production. (Gov’t Opp. at 192, Dkt. No. 204). The Court denied the motion, explaining that the Court lacked the power to order pretrial disclosure of non-exculpatory co-conspirator statements. (Op. & Order at 30, Dkt. No. 207). The Court also explained that the “[c]o-conspirator statements may often be admitted at trial on a conditional basis,” and to the extent that “can pose a problem, a pretrial hearing is unnecessary here because the Government has committed to producing co-conspirator statements at least six weeks in advance of trial to allow Maxwell to raise any objections.” (/d. at 30-31). The defendant’s second bite at the apple came in the parties’ joint scheduling letter. (Letter, Dkt. No. 291). There, the defense requested that the Government “identify any co-conspirator’s names and statements (whether via witness testimony or documentary evidence) at the same time as it discloses []3500 material,” so it could “litigate their admissibility before trial.” (/d. at 11-12). The Government responded that it is “entirely appropriate for defense counsel to receive notice of any co-conspirator statements through Jencks Act materials and marked exhibits,” because any co- conspirator statements will be contained therein. (/d. at 5). The Government also noted that the defendant cited no cases “directing separate notice of coconspirator statements that the Government may introduce at trial.” (/d.) On June 2, 2021, the Court adopted the “Government’s proposal” and set a deadline of October 11, 2021, for the “disclosure of Jencks Act and Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence and 56 DOJ-OGR-00006765