Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 2 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 17, 2021 BY ECF 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, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government files this letter in advance of the expected testimony of law enforcement agents. From conferring, the Government understands that the defense intends to ask questions of at least one law enforcement witness beyond those questions that elicit prior inconsistent statements (to which the Government has generally offered to stipulate, insofar as they are admitted). In advance of the agents' testimony, the Government writes regarding the boundaries of the Court's prior rulings on the scope of questions put to law enforcement witnesses. Specifically, and pursuant to the Court's rulings at the November 1, 2021 conference (attached as Exhibit A), the Government will object to any questions about "the failure to utilize some particular technique" 1 DOJ-OGR-00008393
@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document 549
AI Analysis
Summary: The government files a letter with the court regarding the anticipated testimony of law enforcement agents and the boundaries of cross-examination, citing prior court rulings and relevant case law. The government objects to certain lines of questioning by the defense, including those related to investigative techniques and motives. The letter is submitted in advance of the agents' testimony.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it reveals the government's position on the scope of cross-examination of law enforcement witnesses and may impact the trial strategy in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.
Key Topics:
Scope of cross-examination of law enforcement witnesses
Boundaries of court rulings on questioning law enforcement
Anticipated testimony of law enforcement agents
Key People:
- Alison J. Nathan - United States District Judge
- Ghislaine Maxwell - Defendant
- Damian Williams - United States Attorney
- Maurene Comey - Assistant United States Attorney
- Alison Moe - Assistant United States Attorney
- Lara Pomerantz - Assistant United States Attorney
- Andrew Rohrbach - Assistant United States Attorney
Full Text
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 2 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 17, 2021 BY ECF 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, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government files this letter in advance of the expected testimony of law enforcement agents. From conferring, the Government understands that the defense intends to ask questions of at least one law enforcement witness beyond those questions that elicit prior inconsistent statements (to which the Government has generally offered to stipulate, insofar as they are admitted). In advance of the agents' testimony, the Government writes regarding the boundaries of the Court's prior rulings on the scope of questions put to law enforcement witnesses. Specifically, and pursuant to the Court's rulings at the November 1, 2021 conference (attached as Exhibit A), the Government will object to any questions about "the failure to utilize some particular technique" 1 DOJ-OGR-00008393
--- PAGE BREAK ---
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 2
(11/01/21 Tr. at 16 (citing United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2000))), that the government "had an improper motive" (id. (citing United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997))), "affirmative evidence by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the investigation" (id. at 17), "[t]he length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the investigation" (id. at 19 (quoting United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019))), and questions about "who [the case agents] talked to, what documents they subpoenaed, and when," (id. at 20), among other lines of questioning.
Without knowing details of the defense's anticipated direct examination of the law enforcement witnesses, however, the Government does not seek relief at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
By: s/
Maurene Comey
Alison Moe
Lara Pomerantz
Andrew Rohrbach
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
Cc: Defense Counsel (by ECF)
Individual Pages
Page 1 - DOJ-OGR-00008393
Page 2 of 2 - DOJ-OGR-00008394
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 2
(11/01/21 Tr. at 16 (citing United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2000))), that the government "had an improper motive" (id. (citing United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997))), "affirmative evidence by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the investigation" (id. at 17), "[t]he length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the investigation" (id. at 19 (quoting United States v. Duncan, No. 18 Cr. 289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019))), and questions about "who [the case agents] talked to, what documents they subpoenaed, and when," (id. at 20), among other lines of questioning.
Without knowing details of the defense's anticipated direct examination of the law enforcement witnesses, however, the Government does not seek relief at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
DAMIAN WILLIAMS
United States Attorney
By: s/
Maurene Comey
Alison Moe
Lara Pomerantz
Andrew Rohrbach
Assistant United States Attorneys
Southern District of New York
Cc: Defense Counsel (by ECF)