DOJ-OGR-00007124.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header** * Case Number: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * Document Number: 465 * Filed Date: 11/15/21 * Page Number: 73 of 127 **Case Text** * THE COURT: That's because the relevant age of consent for purposes of the case that the government is trying to prove is the New York statute, which sets 17 as the age of consent, and this individual was -- sorry, under 17 is the age of consent, and this individual, when the government understands sexual conduct to have occurred, was 17, correct? * MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. * THE COURT: Okay. * MS. MOE: It's nonetheless our position this is direct evidence for a number of reasons. First, it's -- evidence for a number of reasons. First, it's -- THE COURT: Direct evidence of what? * MS. MOE: Of the charged conspiracy. In part because this conduct occurred at the same time the defendant was engaged in conduct with respect to the other victims, and her testimony will establish a pattern that is corroborative of their testimony and demonstrates the defendant's knowledge and intent. * With respect to the issue -- * THE COURT: You've slid between direct evidence and 404(b), right, knowledge and intent? * MS. MOE: No, your Honor. The government will certainly be required to prove at trial the defendant's knowledge and intent to commit these crimes. So the defendant's conduct with respect to this victim goes directly to that issue. In particular, I take the Court's point with SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 **Footer** * DOJ-OGR-00007124