DOJ-OGR-00014127.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Header** * **Case Number:** Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * **Document Number:** Document 763 * **Filing Date:** Filed 08/10/22 * **Page Number:** Page 21 of 197 **Text Body** 1. repeatedly relied on rule 613(a), which uses different language and is about impeachment by prior inconsistent statement on 2. cross examination, not introduction of a prior statement as 3. extrinsic evidence as it seeks to do here. 4. So the opportunity to explain the statement should 5. consist of something more than just the opportunity to admit or 6. deny making the statement. That's right in Miller, 28 Federal 7. Practice and Procedure Evidence, Section 6205, Note 1, Second 8. Edition 2021. Citing a Seventh Circuit case and an Eleventh 9. Circuit case. 10. Now I'm going to quote from Gulani again. A trial 11. court has discretion to require satisfaction of the latter 12. requirement before the extrinsic evidence is offered or 13. alternatively to permit it to be satisfied by recalling the 14. witness after the extrinsic evidence is received. 15. In a case called Surdow, S-u-r-d-o-w, the Second 16. Circuit stated that the district court has broad discretion to 17. exclude extrinsic impeachment evidence that was not revealed 18. while the witness was on the stand or at least before the 19. witness was permitted to leave the court. That's United States 20. v. Surdow, 121 F.Appx. 898 (2d Cir. 2005), collecting 21. authorities. 22. Therefore, the Court will sustain the government's 23. objection as to all proposed prior inconsistent statements to 24. which the witness was not presented with the statement to **Footer** * **Southern District Reporters, P.C.** * **Phone Number:** (212) 805-0300 * **Case Number:** DOJ-OGR-00014127 **Page Number** * **Page 21 of 197** Note: The document appears to be a transcript of a court proceeding, with the text body containing the actual transcript and the footer providing additional information about the court and its reporters.