DOJ-OGR-00019133.pdf

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 757 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 49 1982 LC9VMAXT 1 THE COURT: Let's take that example, Mr. Pagliuca. 2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the problem, I think, is 3 that it is simply highlighting a specific piece of evidence; 4 that this is summation, essentially, and not witness testimony. 5 The witness has no personal knowledge of the phone calls. The 6 witness is simply comparing this to that, which is what should 7 be done in summation or should have been done with the witness 8 who actually was the testifying witness with the exhibit. 9 10 Ms. Hesse, for example. You have that message pad? Yes. 11 Compare that message pad with this particular record. Are 12 those the same phone numbers? I suppose that could happen. 13 Or with Carolyn, could have been asked, Is that your 14 phone number? Does that match the record? 15 This is simply an FBI agent who's going to take those 16 pieces of evidence selectively and then talk about them; this 17 matches this, this matches that. I don't believe that's 18 appropriate under 1006, which is, you know, the rule that 19 allows for summary exhibits, for example, but does not allow 20 for summary testimony of things that have already been admitted 21 into evidence. 22 Certainly in the government's closing argument they 23 can do this and they can make whatever arguments they want. 24 But this is simply a closing argument through a summary witness 25 in the middle of a trial before a very long break, and I just SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00019133