EFTA00024954Set 8
2013-02-0228p4,678w
interview with Minor Victim-4 will become
relevant for impeaching her with a prior inconsistent statement. At present, however, the
Government does not expect that Minor Victim-4's testimony ... Hall satisfies the multiple prerequisites for introducing extrinsic
evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. See generally United States v. Ghailani, 761 F. Supp.
2d 114, 117-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing ... clear, although Dr. Hall could conceivably testify as to his recollection of some prior
inconsistent statement by Minor Victim-4, the rough transcript of his interview with her cannot
become
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00024954.pdf
EFTA00090223Set 9
2021-11-188p2,431w
statements of the
Minor Victims, presumably suggesting that they may be admissible as prior inconsistent
statements. (Def. Mot. at 4). This argument misses the mark. Any statements in the EVCP ... documents only after the witness
testifies."). For instance, if the Court identifies a prior inconsistent statement in only one
document, no other records should be released to the defendant ... evaluating
whether any statement is relevant to show bias or as a prior inconsistent statement, the Court should
consider whether it is precluded under Rule 403, for the reasons described
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00090223.pdf
EFTA00010118Set 8
2021-11-188p2,432w
statements of the
Minor Victims, presumably suggesting that they may be admissible as prior inconsistent
statements. (Def. Mot. at 4). This argument misses the mark. Any statements in the EVCP ... documents only after the witness
testifies."). For instance, if the Court identifies a prior inconsistent statement in only one
document, no other records should be released to the defendant ... evaluating
whether any statement is relevant to show bias or as a prior inconsistent statement, the Court should
consider whether it is precluded under Rule 403, for the reasons described
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00010118.pdf
EFTA00089904Set 9
2021-11-0117p4,502w
abuse." Notice at 12.
The Defense argues these statements are admissible as prior inconsistent statements. Def. Br. at
16-17. The Government concedes that Dr. Hall's testimony here would ... admissible, including
potentially as a prior inconsistent statement, if relevant and not otherwise excludable. Gov't Br.
at 16, 18.
The Court reserves judgment on this question, but provides this ... whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior
inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613.
2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understand
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00089904.pdf
EFTA00087203Set 9
2021-11-0117p5,289w
abuse." Notice at 12.
The Defense argues these statements are admissible as prior inconsistent statements. Def. Br. at
16-17. The Government concedes that Dr. Hall's testimony here would ... admissible, including
potentially as a prior inconsistent statement, if relevant and not otherwise excludable. Gov't Br.
at 16, 18.
The Court reserves judgment on this question, but provides this ... whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior
inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613.
2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00087203.pdf
EFTA00068501Set 9
2021-11-0117p5,289w
abuse." Notice at 12.
The Defense argues these statements are admissible as prior inconsistent statements. Def. Br. at
16-17. The Government concedes that Dr. Hall's testimony here would ... admissible, including
potentially as a prior inconsistent statement, if relevant and not otherwise excludable. Gov't Br.
at 16, 18.
The Court reserves judgment on this question, but provides this ... whether the Defense satisfies the other requirements of admitting extrinsic evidence of a prior
inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613.
2 From the parties' briefing, the Court understands
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00068501.pdf
EFTA00076468Set 9
2018-06-1320p6,187w
Conn. Dec. 26, 2007) (holding that prior inconsistent statements of testifying witnesses are
"properly within the scope of [a] Rule 17(c) subpoena").
Evidence showing a witness's motive ... cooperate, showing bias, or containing prior
inconsistent statements, however, does not become relevant until the witness testifies. For this
reason, many courts have held that production of impeaching evidence pursuant
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00076468.pdf