DOJ-OGR-00018273.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Image Extraction** **Case Number:** 1:20-cr-00330-PAE **Document Number:** Document 749 **Filed Date:** 08/10/22 **Page Number:** Page 172 of 236 **Case Name:** Parkinson - Direct **Case Text:** LC3KMAX6 1. corroborates her testimony about the way the house appeared, 2. the way that made her feel when she was inside the house. 3. There are particular details throughout the residence that she 4. described that are corroborated by these photographs. 5. THE COURT: But you didn't show her the photographs 6. and ask if it looks the same or what looks the same and what 7. looks different. 8. MS. MOE: Of course, your Honor. Part of the reason 9. that these photographs are corroborating is that she hasn't 10. been shown these photographs, she was able to describe the 11. interior of the residence not having seen the photographs that 12. had been taken. In other words, she gave a blind description 13. of it that was corroborated by photographs of the interior. 14. THE COURT: You could have, and you should have, shown 15. them to her after she provided the testimony. The problem is, 16. it's 15 years since the end of the conspiracy, it's 20-some 17. years since her testimony. I've looked at case law on this. 18. Older photographs of immovable objects and structure may be 19. relevant, and to the extent you have a witness testifying 20. saying it is similar to what I saw or specifically saying it's 21. similar in this way or dissimilar in that way, it would be 22. permitted. 23. In the absence of that, we're talking about very 24. movable items and a substantially long period of time. If 25. there is a witness who could do that, that would be **Footer:** SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 **DOJ-OGR-00018273**