DOJ-OGR-00007056.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document465- Filed 11/15/21 Page5of127 5 LB1TMAX1 1 precluding the term "victim" is both unnecessary and 2 imoractical. United States v. Dupigny, 18 CR 528, transcript 3 of October 17, 2019, Docket No. 198 at 50. It is appropriate 4 for the government to use the terms as representative of its 5 litigating position. If the government does this in any way 6 that is atypical or unduly prejudicial, I will revisit. 7 Defense only cites out-of-circuit or state court 8 decisions for the proposition that those terms are inherently 9 prejudicial and harm the presumption of innocence. Numerous 10 courts of appeal disagree with that argument, particularly when 11 the presentation of evidence and the court's instructions 12 "taken as a whole clarify the government's burden of proving 13 all elements of the crime." United States v. Washburn, 444 14 F.3d, 1007, 1113 (8th Cir. 2006); see also, Server v. Mizell, 15 902 F.2d 611, 615, (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Granbois, 16 119 F.App'x 35, 38-39 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 Defendant's lone district court opinion does not tip 18 the balance of this authority. I will, of course, instruct the 19 jury repeatedly that the defendant is presumed innocent and 20 that it is the government's burden and the government's burden 21 alone to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Those 22 instructions will eliminate any potential prejudice. See again 23 Judge Furman's decision in Dupigny, Docket No. 198 at 49 24 That matter resolved, I will turn to the government's 25 first motion. This goes to pseudonyms. The government moves SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007056