DOJ-OGR-00008381.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document545 Filed 12/15/21 Page8sof9 would serve no proper purpose.? Finally, Glassman’s conversations with the EVCP do not impeach Jane’s testimony. The defendant would call Glassman to testify that he originally demanded a higher settlement from the EVCP. As the Court explained when the defendant raised this very issue at a break on December 1, “there are personal knowledge questions in issue.” (Tr. 489). On cross, defense counsel asked Jane if she knew whether her attorney asked the EVCP for more money, and she said she did not know. (Tr. 558). Today, as on December 1, evidence of Glassman’s negotiations with the EVCP (or the defendant) go to Jane’s bias only if Jane was aware of them. Jane testified that she was not aware of them, and the evidence the defendant would elicit from Glassman would not cure that defect. It is therefore improper impeachment. And for Glassman, as for Scarola and Edwards, the suggestion that the jury should infer that Jane and Glassman had certain privileged conversations that affect Jane’s knowledge from the fact that Glassman had other exchanges with other individuals is more prejudicial than probative. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. I. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court should preclude testimony from Jack Scarola, Brad Edwards, and Robert Glassman. 3 The defendant also argues that Glassman’s exchanges with the Government that “do not repeat or refer to statements by Jane” are not privileged. (Def. Letter at 8). Glassman’s statements in the email are “Hey [prosecutor]. Hope you guys are staying safe. Here was her response about the lion king,” which are irrelevant. And the prosecutor’s statements can only be relevant to the extent that Jane was aware of them. But the defense has not established that fact, in part because the defense framed its questions on cross to call for privileged information. (See, e.g., Tr. 511 (“The government suggested to you that perhaps you meant to say The Lion King movie through your attorney to you; correct?” (emphasis added))). 8 DOJ-OGR- 00008381