DOJ-OGR-00008397.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO a oO = be N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 24 15 LB1ITMAX1 to rehabilitate a witness attacked on another ground. It's 801(d) (1) (B) (ii). For example, the statement could be admitted to explain what would otherwise appear to be an inconsistency in the witness's statement and rebut a charge of faulty memory. United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, (2d Cir. 2020). it becomes relevant, the government may offer prior statements before the witness testifies if the defense attacks the credibility in opening statements and it's clear that the witness will be subject to cross-examination. United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, (2d Cir. 2019). That's restating the applicable law here that the parties appear to agree to in the briefs. The government doesn't anticipate any such effort to (e) Fer such statements at this time and won't mention any in opening beyond that. Is there anything specific to flag or discuss here, from the government's perspective? MS. MOE: Ee] No, your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, Laura Menninger. None for the defense at this time. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. The government's 3 and 4, which I'm going to group, the government seeks to preclud vidence and arguments by the defense, (1) about the investigation in Florida, including the non-prosecution agreement, (2) that Ms. Maxwell was not charged SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR- 00008397