DOJ-OGR-00008105.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document508 _ Filed 11/24/21 Page 20 of 25 These are just some of the many reasons why Rule 703 does not bar Dr. Hall’s testimony. To the extent the government has other objections, it can raise those objections in context during trial. 5. Dr. Hall’s “fact testimony.” As Dr. Hall’s report makes clear, i —“CSCSCSCiés WE cver disclosed any abuse by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Then, when interviewed for 6 4 hours by Dr. Hall, gg claimed to have been abused by Mr. Epstein, but she did not allege any abuse or improper conduct by Ms. Maxwell. This evidence is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement. To the extent the government claims gg failure ever to implicate Ms. Maxwell to gg or Dr. Hall is not “inconsistent enough,” that argument goes to weight, not admissibility. See R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, No. 91 CIV. 5678 (CSH), 2000 WL 520615, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2000) (extent of inconsistency “may prove useful grist for the cross- examiner’s mill,” but the argument “go[es] to the weight of this opinion testimony and not its admissibility”). Indeed, this Court has already ruled that Ms. Maxwell can admit evidence that yg HEE prior statements to law enforcement did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. TR 11/1/2021, p 27. The same logic applies here. The government says Ms. Maxwell “does not need Dr. Hall’s testimony to inform the jury that bas not always disclosed the defendant’s role in Epstein’s abuse.” Mot. at 18. “Need,” of course, is not the test for admissibility, and the government does not get to limit Ms. Maxwell’s evidence only that which the government claims she “needs.” See White, 692 16 DOJ-OGR-00008105