DOJ-OGR-00008230.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document525 Filed 12/05/21 Page6éof9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 5, 2021 Page 6 was accurate. Gov. Letter at 8. But that argument would work only if there were evidence that the 2019 photos look like what photos from 1994 or 1995 or 1996 would have looked like. And as the government does not deny, there’s no such evidence. The government does not dispute that it could have asked Jane to authenticate the photos by showing the photographs to her when she testified. Gov. Letter at 8 n.3. According to the government, however, “[b]efore showing the photographs to Jane on the stand, the Government would surely need to show her the photographs in advance,” and that would have “‘vitiat[ed] the photographs’ value as independent corroboration.” /d. This is a baseless argument. The government easily could have showed the photographs to Jane for the first time during her testimony, asked her if she recognized them, asked whether the photos accurately depicted the house and massage room as it existed in 1994 or 1995 or 1996, or at least asked if the photographs looked similar to what the apartment looked like back then. In turn, once the government elicited testimony from another witness about when the photographs were taken, it could have moved to admit them. This procedure would have addressed the government’s concer about preserving the photographs as independent corroboration of Jane’s testimony. The only conceivable thing stopping the government from doing this was a concern that Jane would not give the answer the government wanted. But even if this procedure would have “vitiat[ed] the photographs’ value as independent corroboration,” that’s just how trials go. Sometimes tradeoffs are necessary to comply with the rules of evidence. And having to make such a tradeoff does not mean Ms. Maxwell was wrong to object or the Court was wrong to sustain. DOJ-OGR-00008230