Document Mentions (3 shared documents)

EFTA00088802

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

ense may make arguments attacking the credibility of victims, the Government is free to argue that these witnesses are, in fact, victims of a crime. Cl United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 807 (2d Cir. 1994) (explaining that prosecutors may also "respond to an argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity

y this form of testimony, as explained above. To the extent Raymond stands for such a broad proposition, it is contrary to the law of this Circuit. See United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13, 21-22 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 276 n.14 (2d Cir.

s case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency." Id.; accord United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1561 (2d Cir. 1991). The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the cri

EFTA00792756

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

s filed on September 21, 2015 at which time Plaintiff was living in Colorado and Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell was living in New York. Plaintiff is a United States Citizen. Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.00. Defendant's Statement: Ms. Maxwell agrees with the Plaintiff's statement, above. i

ssary to authenticate business records under FRE 803(b) 27. Any witnesses necessary for impeachment or rebuttal 28. Dr. Kliman (expert) 29. Dr. Coonan (expert) 30. Jim Jansen (expert) 31. Chris Andersen (expert) 32. Bill Chandler (rebuttal expert) 33. Dianne Flores (expert) Plaintiff reserv

EFTA00617396

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page