DOJ-OGR-00007133.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Document Image Extraction** **Case Information** * Case Number: 1:20-cr-00330-PAE * Document Number: 465 * Filed Date: 11/15/21 **Page Information** * Page Number: 82 of 127 **Text Extraction** **Page Header** * LB1TMAX3 **Text Body** 1. is entirely irrelevant, every single one of them. 2. So our view, Judge, is that her testimony should not come in as direct evidence of the conspiracy. At best, what the government has articulated -- they keep talking about pattern, intent, knowledge. That's classic 404(b). So if we're going to talk about this witness's testimony at all, we should be talking about it in terms of 404(b) and whether it meets that test. And it doesn't, your Honor. It is not probative of knowledge or intent. 4. For a crime that charges causing someone to travel to engage in a legal sex act as a minor, if that person is neither a minor, did not travel with the intent of doing something illegal because it was not illegal in any of those jurisdictions, whatever happened, according to her own testimony, it is not probative of any of those crimes and for 404(b) purposes, too. 5. Pattern, Judge, if it's modus operandi, that need to be extremely specific before that can come in as modus operandi evidence. We can't talk about engaging in social pleasantries and polite conversation with someone as a pattern. That is not a pattern that passes muster. 6. Furthermore, there are huge 403 issues with this witness's testimony. If she talks about how she felt about these experiences, that is eliciting sympathy from the jury. It is not legally probative and it will lead them to think that **Footer** * SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. * (212) 805-0300 * DOJ-OGR-00007133