DOJ-OGR-00008102.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document508- Filed 11/24/21 Page17 of 25 The decision in United States v. Robinson is instructive. In that case—which concerned an alleged firearm sale in 2008—evidence showed the CI had a significant history of drug use dating to 2000. 583 F.3d at 1271. Records revealed a history of using opioids, alcohol, cannabis, benzodiazepine, Valium, Klonipin, Darvocet, and hydrocodone. /d. at 1271-72. The district court, however, forbade the defendant from cross-examining the CI on his drug use. The Court of Appeals reversed, explaining that [ijllegal drug use does not merely bear on the CI’s veracity but also on his capacity as a witness. .. . Extensive drug use since 2000 suggests that the CI could have been under the influence at the time of the alleged firearm sale. Moreover, if the witness was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time he testifies, this condition is provable, on cross or by extrinsic evidence, to impeach. Had Robinson known that the CI had much more than “a little bit” of a drug problem, he certainly would have explored whether the CI was using drugs at the time of the alleged sale or at the time of trial. Id. at 1272 (citing United States v. Crosby, 462 F.2d 1201, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972); 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence, § 607.05[1] (Joseph M. McLaughlin ed., 2d ed. 2009); Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick on Evidence § 44 (6th ed. 2006)) (cleaned up). This Court should adhere to DiPaolo and Robinson and reject the government’s attempt to preclude Ms. Maxwell from what is, “of course,” proper cross-examination. DiPaolo, 804 F.2d at 229; see Robinson, 583 F.3d at 1272. DOJ-OGR-00008102