DOJ-OGR-00008062.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 21 of 28 expects to elicit the failure to mention her on direct, and does not object to reasonable cross examination on the subject. It may nonetheless be that after Minor Victim-4 testifies the defendant will be able to argue that some statement made to Dr. Hall satisfies the multiple prerequisites for introducing extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. See generally United States v. Ghailani, 761 F. Supp. 2d 114, 117-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing requirements).!° As the Court has noted, any argument on that score must await the presentation of evidence. (See Nov. 11, 2021 Sealed Tr., at 194). But at present, the defendant has identified no relevant fact testimony that Dr. Hall could offer. Because his expert testimony is similarly inadmissible, he should be excluded as a witness absent further developments at trial. 10 To be clear, although Dr. Hall could conceivably testify as to his recollection of some prior inconsistent statement by Minor Victim-4, the rough transcript of his interview with her cannot become admissible as extrinsic evidence of Minor Victim-4’s statements regardless how she testifies. That label—“rough transcript”—comes from the document itself. (3505-035, at 1). And it is quite obviously rough. The document contains numerous errors, including on material points. Because the rough transcript is not a verbatim transcript, 1t cannot be offered as extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements. See United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, 29 (2d Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (“[A] ‘third party’s characterization’ of a witness’s statement does not constitute a prior statement of that witness unless the witness has subscribed to that characterization.”); United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, 757 (2d Cir. 1980) (FBI notes offered to impeach not attributable to witness because “‘a witness may not be charged with a third party’s characterization of his statements unless the witness has subscribed to them”); see also Ghailani, 761 F. Supp. 2d at 117-18, 120 (excluding testimony about prior witness interviews offered as prior inconsistent statements due to, among other things, concerns about translation errors). 19 DOJ-OGR-00008062