DOJ-OGR-00008403.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 24 21 LB1TMAX1 1 The defense also seeks to elicit evidence of the 2 public outcry and scrutiny that preceded the decision to charge 3 the defendant. The defense refers to public statements made by 4 assistant United States attorneys -- not those appearing in the 5) case -- to suggest that Ms. Maxwell was charged for improper 6 reasons. 7 The Court finds that this specific proffered evidenc 8 is irrelevant to the charged conduct and, therefore, 9 inadmissible. 10 To the extent that the defense's affirmative evidence 11 in this regard would have some marginal probative value, it is 12 substantially outweighed by 403 prejudice. See, for example, 13 United States v. Hill, 12 CR 214, 2014 WL 198813 (E.D.N.Y. 14 2014), affirmed by the Second Circuit, 658 Fed. Appx. 600. 15 Here's the reason for that 403 analysis: 16 First, investigative details are likely to confuse the 17 jury about the proper standard for determining Ms. Maxwell's 18 guilt by suggesting that the government's choices of 19 investigative techniques are relevant to whether guilt is 20 proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I will instruct 21 jurors, as is standard, to the effect that the government is 22 not on trial. And that standard charge can be found in many 23 cases. Admitting testimony on the investigation would confuse 24 the jury once it's received that instruction. 25 Second, these lines of argument are likely to SOUTHERN DISTR CT REPORT ERS, (212) 805-0300 PG ew DOJ-OGR-00008403