DOJ-OGR-00006772.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 64 of 84 excluding the testimony of a defense witness as a sanction for counsel’s (1) noncompliance with a discovery rule that required notice of intention to call the witness, and (ii) misleading the court conceming his knowledge of the witness’s whereabouts. The Supreme Court found the discovery violation was “both willful and blatant.” /d. at 416. Taylor does not support the defense’s position. The defense, citing Zaylor, accuses the Government of willfully violating the Court’s September 3, 2021 Order. (See Def. Mot. 1 at 6-7; see id. at 3 (accusing the Government of “attempting to overstuff an already full sandbag”)). The Government did no such thing. The Government has simply read the word “disclose” to mean “disclose,” consistent with the uniform practice in this District. The defense’s accusations are baseless and offensive. The defense has all of the co-conspirator statements the Government plans to use at trial. They have these records “unusually early”—seven weeks before trial. (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353). The defense also knows the identities of the limited number of co-conspirators to whom the Government may refer at trial, a highly unusual circumstance that makes the defense’s task even easier. And they are free to litigate the admissibility of any such statement during trial. The Government has complied with its obligations, and the defense is fully equipped to prepare for trial. The Court should deny the motion. V. There is No Basis to Suppress Minor Victim-4’s Identification of the Defendant The defendant claims that Minor Victim-4’s identification of her was unduly suggestive and should be suppressed. (Def. Mot. 9). That argument finds support in neither fact nor law. Minor Victim-4 knew the defendant personally, and she has consistently described the defendant for decades. The identification was not suggestive, and the motion should be denied. A. Background 63 DOJ-OGR-00006772