EPSTEIN
page 4 / 890 . OCR, unverified
stand for the unremarkable proposition that you can't
impeach -- or you can't use extrinsic evidence on a collateral
matter.
THE COURT: Correct.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017618
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00017618.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00017619.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00017619.jpg
----------------------------------------
~]
a
=
=
Hs
a
a
~]
a
a
Ke)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
LCLVMAX1
MR.
this time period is not a collateral mat
witness to
this case
TH
statement.
so you have
the stand, then it's not a Rule
E COURT:
But
something that
Document 745
EVERDELL:
Her memory about
Well,
to the ext
again,
tent you are at
I don'
issue,
Filed 08/10/22
Lter;
Page 10 of 264 416
t anything to do with
she is a central
t adopt that broad
tL contradicts what she
I doubt i
tempting to impeach --
testified to on
t's a 613
a 608 issue. We may have to deal with 613 questions and what
it is that we're looking at.
MR. EVERDELL: Again, it's also not a 608 issue, 'd
say, your Honor, because that rule deals with conduct.
THE COURT: said it's not a 608 issue.
MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Okay. agree with you.
MR. ROHRBACH: I'm a little confused, your Honor.
I think we're agreeing that, as your Honor said, if
it's offered for impeachment with a proper basis for
impeachment and it's not about a collateral matter, then they
didn't have to disclose
j
in
Rule 16.
it's to advance the
, whether in
There are things that the det
bu
defense cas
defense case, then it sho
offer for impeachment,
collateral mat
based on a
impeachment
contradiction or some other proper theory of
ter or might
that might b
b
the government's case or in the
uld have been disclosed in Rule 16.
fense might expect to
impeachment about a
impeachment,
but is not, in fact,
, in which case it is not an admissible exhibit.
SOUTH
ERN
D
STR
CT REPORT
ERS,
(212)
805-0300
PG ew
DOJ-OGR-00017619
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00017619.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00017620.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00017620.jpg
----------------------------------------
NO
~]
Ke)
a
he
No
(ee)
=
Hs
_
a
~]
a
a
Ke}
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
LCLVMAX1
Document 745
Filed 08/10/22
Page 11 of 264
The government also doesn't agree with the defense's
broad statement that anything that goes to this witness's
memory is a noncollateral matter. It's hard for us to know now
exactly what they plan to do. The government thinks we should
take that as it comes. But think there's sort of broad
agreement about the general principles here, your Honor.
MR. EVERDELL: If there's broad agreement, your Honor,
then there shouldn't be objections. If we have an issue with
the witness's memory that we believe we have a document or some
other information that contradicts what she's saying, then we
are allowed to cross on it.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll take it as it comes, but we
agree on the principles. I think the only question is --
sustained the objection to admission of the photograph, because
it's not clear to me that it's impeaching. As said, if it's
not impeaching, then it might be a Rule 16 issue; I wasn't
entirely sure what you were trying to do with it.
You're welcome to if there's some basis to show a
photograph, to impeach something she suggested in her
testimony, then you can do that.
MR. EVERDELL: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. EVERDELL: Understood.
MR. ROHRBACH: The government agrees, your Honor. The
issue with that particular photograph, setting aside the fact
SOUTHERN D
STR
CT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017620
417
==================== END OF root__DOJ-OGR-00017620.jpg.txt ====================
==================== DOCUMENT: root__DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg.txt ====================
METADATA_SOURCE: .
METADATA_FILENAME: DOJ-OGR-00017621.jpg
----------------------------------------
NO
~]
Ke)
a
he
No
(ee)
=
Hs
_
a
~]
a
a
Ke}
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
LCLVMAX1
Document 745
that the witness couldn't recognize it,
Filed 08/10/22
questions about admissibility than just whether it's relevant
or impeaching,
anything the witness said on the stand;
basis for impeachment. And if
some other way,
THE
COURT: What
when the witness lived at
302?
MR. ROHRBACH: f
rest to answer that question.
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.
I don't recall the particular
witness was beginning to clarify on cross-examination
Beach, she moved to the second address.
specific date --
is that it wasn't a direct contradict
it advanced the d
the address that's rei
may ask Ms.
Page 12 of 264
and there are other
tion of
so it wasn't a proper
fense case in
it would have been a Rule 16 --
is the government's understanding of