DOJ-OGR-00008419.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document550- Filed 12/17/21 Page1of3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew’s Plaza New York, New York 10007 December 16, 2021 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 82 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government writes in response to the Court’s order of December 16, 2021. First, Rule 613(b) provides that extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given “an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.” The Rule thus provides the district court with the discretion to require that the alleged inconsistent statement itself be shown to the witness, in order to afford the witness the opportunity to explain it. United States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210-11 (7th Cir. 1987). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, this is particularly important in the context of documents likes FBI reports, that are not necessarily verbatim transcription of the witness’s alleged statement: If defense counsel had been reading from a transcript of a previous trial or deposition, there would have been no justification for the district judge's procedure. But since a statement appearing in an interview report could easily be garbled, yet seem authoritative when read from a paper that the jury would infer was an official 1 DOJ-OGR-00008419