DOJ-OGR-00018533.pdf

--- Page 1 --- **Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE** **Document 751** **Filed 08/10/22** **Page 196 of 261** **LC6VMAX6** **1** mean, it's a low bar for relevance, but for the reasons I indicated in my earlier opinion, substantially far distance in time, highly movable objects that don't appear to be specific to what the witness described, may not meet the 401 standard. And if it does meet the 401 standard, I think for the reasons Mr. Everdell indicated, it would likely be outweighed by 403 prejudice. **2** You have the testimony from the witness as to her experience with the uniforms. It's difficult to see on the current record. But, as I said, I'll look at the testimony and I'll let you know. **3** MR. EVERDELL: And, your Honor, just to be clear, this objection would also apply to the physical outfits themselves. **4** THE COURT: Right. Same point. Yes. Okay. **5** MR. EVERDELL: Thank you. **6** THE COURT: Anything else? **7** MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. **8** MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. (Recess) **9** THE COURT: All right. I'm sustaining the objection on 919 and 920 on 401/403 grounds, as well as the actual items. Are there matters to take up? **10** MR. EVERDELL: Not from the defense, your Honor. **11** MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. **12** THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. **13** SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 **14** DOJ-OGR-00018533