DOJ-OGR-00008227.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header** The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 5, 2021 Page 3 **Case Information** Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE **Document Details** Document 525 Filed 12/05/21 Page 3 of 9 **Text Content** As for the massage room, Jane said that it was "painted dark, but - maybe that was the lighting, but it sort of has this, like, red mood." Id. at 320:21-23. But Jane denied looking at the walls of the massage room. Id. at 321:1-2 ("My eyes didn't even look at the walls, mostly the floor, if not what was going on."). This Court sustained Ms. Maxwell's objection to admission of the 900 series photographs. TR 12/3/2021, p 1077:3-4. The Court explained that the photos depicted the interior of the home fifteen years after any conspiracy ended, and more than twenty years after Jane claims to have been in the home. And the things depicted, elaborated the Court, we're "highly mobile items": You could have, and you should have, shown them to [Jane] after she provided the testimony. The problem is, it's 15 years since the end of the conspiracy, it's 20-some years since her testimony. I've looked at case law on this. Older photographs of immovable objects and structure may be relevant, and to the extent you have a witness testifying saying it is similar to what I saw or specifically saying it's similar in this way or dissimilar in that way, it would be permitted. In the absence of that, we're talking about very movable items and a substantially long period of time. If there is a witness who could do that, that would be appropriate, but in the absence of that, I won't allow it in simply based on her description of what it looked like then. You have that description in, so I'll sustain the objection based on the current record. So if you wanted to ask her if it's the same objects, you should have, or you could have, or you can, but in the absence of that, we're talking about highly mobile items. The law does not support inclusion in this context without a witness testifying as to the similarity of what -- you're trying to corroborate that these photos show what it looked like then. You have a witness who can do that, but in the absence of that, I'm sustaining the objection. I don't see any basis to distinguish between 15-, 20-year-old, or more, distinction between her description and the photographs. Id. at 1076-77. **Footer** DOJ-OGR-00008227