DOJ-OGR-00008379.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document545 _ Filed 12/15/21 Page6of9 B. Brad Edwards The defendant proposes to call Brad Edwards, counsel for Kate, to say that he provided a U-Visa application to the Government on behalf of Kate. This testimony, too, would not be privileged, but it is irrelevant and improper impeachment. Kate testified that, at a meeting, she asked the Government to look into sponsoring her for a U-Visa. (Tr. 1279, 1287, 1300). She acknowledged that Edwards likely attended the meeting, but did not recall whether he provided a U-Visa form to the Government (Tr. 1300). Kate also explained that her plan is simply to renew her current visa, and that the Government has made no promises to assist her. (Tr. 1207-08, 1295). The fact that Edwards provided the Government with a U-Visa application form during a meeting with Kate is not relevant or impeaching of Kate. Rather, it is entirely consistent with Kate’s testimony—specifically, that she made an inquiry about a U-Visa but was not sure whether her lawyer provided the Government with a U-Visa form. And the fact that her lawyer provided the Government with a U-Visa form is not “powerful evidence of motive of bias,” as the defendant suggests. (Def. Letter at 6). First, as with Scarola’s proposed testimony, it could only be evidence of Kate’s bias to the extent she is aware of the fact, a predicate which the defense did not establish. Second, it is not “powerful” evidence of anything. Kate acknowledged asking the Government about a U-Visa. Whether her lawyer, at the same time, gave the Government a partially complete U-Visa form is at most marginally confirming extrinsic evidence of Kate’s own testimony. It does not show, for instance, that Kate or Edwards continued to seek a U-Visa after the meeting, that she continues to seek one now, or that the Government has made any promises to Kate of any kind about her immigration status, nor could the defense argue any of that from the anticipated DOJ-OGR-00008379