Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document553_ Filed 12/17/21 Page1lof3
Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
My 150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80203
PH 303.831.7364
FX 303.832.2628
www.hmflaw.com
[email protected]
HADDON
MORGAN
FOREMAN
December 16, 2021
VIA Email
The Honorable Alison J. Nathan
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: — United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)
Dear Judge Nathan,
I write in response to this Court’s order.
As to the first question, federal law is clear. “No longer, when a lawyer asks a witness
whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required (as he was at common
law, see Note of Advisory Committee to Fed .R. Evid. 613(a)) to show the statement or disclose
its contents to the witness, though he must upon request show it to opposing counsel.” United
States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.).
As to the second question a statement provable by extrinsic evidence even though the
witness affirms that the 3500 material contains the inconsistent statement and also expresses
disagreement with the substance. By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically
and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement).
Thus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has “under any rational theory it
might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from
anything the witness said.” United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 2002)
DOJ-OGR-00008425