DOJ-OGR-00008432.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document555-~ Filed 12/18/21 Page2of5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 15, 2021 Page 2 The government did not confer with defense counsel before filing its motion. Had it done so, the government would have learned that of these four categories, Ms. Maxwell intends only to elicit testimony about the third. As to that category of testimony, the government’s argument borders on the frivolous. While talking with Mr. Hamilton about Mr. Epstein in 2019 or 2020, Kate made two statements laying bare her motive and bias. ll a a The 2 is clear that Ms. Maxwell can ask Mr. Hamilton about these statements. “The law is well settled in this Circuit, as in others, that bias of a witness is not a collateral issue and extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove that a witness has a motive to testify falsely.” United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, 722 (2d Cir. 1976) (citing cases). And “[t]he law of evidence has long recognized that a cross-examiner is not required to ‘take the answer’ of a witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses, to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of or against a party.” /d. (quoting McCormick, Evidence, § 41 (2d Ed. 1972)) (emphasis added). Indeed, “Special treatment is accorded evidence which is probative of a special motive to lie ‘for if believed it colors every bit of testimony given by the witness whose motives are bared.’” /d. (quoting United States v. ' The government implies that it does not understand what this statement means. Gov. Letter, p 9. The meaning, however, is self-evident. And the government’s inability to understand the statement goes to weight, not admissibility. The government is free to argue to the jury that Kate’s statement is ambiguous or meaningless. DOJ-OGR- 00008432