DOJ-OGR-00006419.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE** **Document 439** **Filed 11/12/21** **Page 2 of 69** **TABLE OF CONTENTS** **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT** A. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine...............................................................................1 B. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here...........................................................................2 C. The Court Should Reject the Government's Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination.......................................................................................................................4 I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE .......................................................................................................................4 A. ...................................................................................................................................5 1. ...................................................................................................................................5 2. ...................................................................................................................................10 3. ...................................................................................................................................12 B. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to Use Fake Names.......................................................................................................................15 C. Defeats the Proffered Purpose for Using Fake Names ...................................................................17 1. ...................................................................................................................................17 2. ...................................................................................................................................18 D. ...................................................................................................................................19 E. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present...............................................................................19 F. Has No Nexus to Ms. Maxwell and Any Reference to Her Should Be Excluded - Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other Artifice .......................................................................................................................20 G. Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose.......................................................................................................................20 H. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell...................................................20 I. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW ...................................................................................................................................23 II. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON "PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS" INAPPROPRIATE23 A. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Admitted .......................................................................................................................24 B. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements................................25 **DOJ-OGR-00006419**