DOJ-OGR-00007154.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 determinative because of the alleged individual and Ms. able to identi array with lit leave it at that. Th def fy Ms. Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 LB15max4 THE COURT: (Continuing) The government also correctly notes that time between the alleged misconduct and identi the tle hesitation. issue but puts, suppression of gained Brown, De oO ns I don't see in genuine disput the frequency of Maxwell. Maxwell when she got The argument that --— Filed 11/15/21 ica Page 103 of 127 tion the delay in is not in Alleged Vict to the phot teractions between tim 4 was to in the I will requested an evidentiary hearing on this identii Le, facts put any 784 F. App'x J fense 10. fFficers which the def from an evidentiary rehearing, (2d Cir. 2019) moves to exc Expert testimony by law en has noticed inten to call three Law ent ns forward by the det lude and Forcement of fense that facts that would support Fication so there would be nothing see United States v. so the request is denied. forcement the government ficers as fact witnesses but not as experts. The government represents that it will not elicit expert testimony from any of them. So, the law enforcement officers can testify as fact witnesses to the facts that they personally perceived but not provide test imony that summarizes parts of which the of provide test experience. imony that relies on specia The government's example of the investigation Ficer did not personally experience and may not lized training and a law enforcement SOUTHERN D STR CT REPORT (212) 805-0300 ERS, Ps 103 DOJ-OGR-00007154