DOJ-OGR-00008416.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO Ww a OY 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 LBI5SMAX2 However, ev would be to to talk abo en if permit the det this became an issue at the trial, ut whether the def their sex t de fense from cross-exa rafficking. The remedy would not Filed 12/17/21 fFense to call Page 22 of 24 34 the remedy these relevant mining law ent hearsay sta would be ex through law individuals to assess whether or not tements tha tremely con enforcemen the def implicated de fendant. those witn And so, thems Forcement fusing t agents, the statements of the government submits that this could come in at trial would be if lves and, of determine t SS€s those lines he pot , and so the government course, it be to permit agents about t witnesses ndant was or was not involved in t other individuals provided to them. It for the jury to be hearing, these those individuals ndant or simply said nothing about the that the only way the defense called is di Fficult to ntial relevance, if any, of respectful testimony along ly submits that none of this should be offered at trial unless and until there is an offer of proof along those lines. THE COURT: Ms. Menninger? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, whether someone said no one else involved or didn't implicate our client is not hearsay, it is the absence of a statement. So I don't understand the government's position that if an investigator -- THE COURT: It is not the absence of the statement, right? F you are trying to put in an out-of-court statement from someone who said that Ms. Maxwell wasn't involved, it is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212%) 805-0220 DOJ-OGR-00008416