DOJ-OGR-00007078.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO a oO = be N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 27 of 127 27 LB1TMAX1 to the jury's decision now, which is whether there is evidenc of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the government will put its case to the jury. Now there is a difference between admitting a witness' prior statements for impeachment purposes, which is protected by the confrontation clause, and admitting prior charging decisions. In a case analogous to this one on this issue, United States v. Borrero, another district court judge held that a defendant could permissibly cross-examine a witness about their prior statement to law enforcement in which they accused a different individual of the crime for which the defendant was later charged. 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). That case docket is 13 CR 58. But the court there did not admit the charging decision that the early investigation had ended in a nolle, because it would confuse jurors, require extended factual disputes, and was, at best, cumulative of the witness's statement. As I have explained, the same would appear to be true her Fifth piece of guidance: In contrast to what indicated may not come in, the Court will permit relevant cross-examination of the government's witnesses. Defense seeks to impeach the credibility of some witnesses by admitting those witnesses' prior statements to the government that purportedly did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. This use of cross-examination to imoeach a witness that has allegedly changed her story to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007078