DOJ-OGR-00008433.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document555-~ Filed 12/18/21 Page3of5 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 15, 2021 Page 3 Blackwood, 456 F.2d 526, 530 (2d Cir. 1972)). What Ms. Maxwell proposes for the testimony of Mr. Hamilton is exactly what the law allows. The government is quite wrong to suggest that these statements are collateral matters. “TBlias or interest of a witness is not a collateral issue, and extrinsic evidence is admissible thereon.” United States v. Haggett, 438 F.2d 396, 399 (2d Cir. 1971). This is not controversial. E.g., United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 550 (Sth Cir. 1979) (“The bias of a witness, however, is not a collateral matter and the party examining the witness is not bound by his denial of acts tending to show his bias.”); United States v. Robinson, 530 F.2d 1076, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (“Bias is never classified as a collateral matter which lies beyond the scope of inquiry, nor as a matter on which an examiner is required to take a witness’s answer.”).” Conspicuously, the government cites no authority for the proposition that Ms. Maxwell cannot ask Mr. Hamilton about Kate’s statements to him. Gov. Letter, pp 9-10. And although the government’s letter is not entirely clear, see Gov. Letter, p 9 n.3, the government apparently does not invoke either Rule 608 or Rule 613 in support of its request to prevent the jury from learning of Kate’s bias and motive. That’s for a good reason. Kate’s statements to Mr. Hamilton are neither specific instances of conduct under Rule 608 nor prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613. DOJ-OGR-00008433