House Oversight — DOJ production
- Format
- File
- 549.pdf
- Set
- House Oversight (DOJ)
- Pages
- 2
- Text
- Searchable
- Text confidence
- 94%
Text as released
Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document549 Filed 12/17/21 Pagelof2 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, 82 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” DOJ-OGR- 00008393 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document549 Filed 12/17/21 Page2of2 (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 line […]