DOJ-OGR-00007105.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LBI5SMAX2 outlined 2021. Fi inadequat i ea Ez Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 54 of 127 54 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. That's fine. COURT: Thank you. Defendants 2 is the admission of certain evidence in the government's 404(b) letter dated October 11, rst, as to the defense argument that there has been an e notice under 404 (bob), I disagr because th government's letter and briefing between the government's letter an notice" o d the briefing her , the defendant has "reasonable f any 404(b) evidence so the question is whether the evidence can be properly admitted. I think there is two categorie s of evidence, th speak in appropria general description and to te. The governmen with that first goes to e-mails, and I will the just general description which I think is t may have attempted to redact some the extent that you have, I disagree but I will speak generally -- I'm sorry, the defense requested redaction as to some general description but I don't think it' this unde instances over the briefing, S appropriate. So I'm going to ask the government, if rstanding is correct, that the e-mails reflect age of consent. MS. MOE: Ee] range is. was under THE COURT: So you of the defendant setting up dates that involve women Your Honor, I think as we noted in our for some of the documents it is unclear what the age wouldn't be able to prove that it the age of consent? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007105