DOJ-OGR-00007077.jpg

fe NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO a fe No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document465 _ Filed 11/15/21 LB1TMAX1 admissibl under t he usual rules of court determined relevance Page 26 of 127 26 ‘ In White, the that a prior charging decision was admissible because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that testified at the defendant's trial. As currently pro fered by the defens , the rationale doesn't apoly here. For example, according to the defense, an alleged victim's statement to the F implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, does implicate her. On the basis o assumedly other evidence available reasons, O fficials in the Southern BI previously did not but her st tatement today £ that sta to them and a host of tement, and DistYPilét of Florida decided to not indict Ms. could be understood as a determination government lacked sufficient evidenc but the decision not of a host of reaso Maxwell at that time. That charging decision that in 2008 the of Ms. Maxwell's guilt, to charge -- or it could mean any number ns, but the decision not to charge has little probative value that the Court can see as to this case. Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require significant time to explore and because juror confusion would be likely. Any consideration of F the government's decisions would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible videnc 25 More importantly, unlike in White, assessments of the SOUTHERN DISTRICT RE (212) 805- evidence in Flor those officials' ida in 2008 is not relevant 0300 PORTERS, P. DOJ-OGR-00007077