HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011334

id.

ne)

life)

31 H3VOGIU1

attitude that has to be confronted in various cases. Frequently, if there's domestic violence that's at issue, an expert witness comes in to explain to the jury, oh, why didn't

she leave? Why did she stay with this fellow who was beating

her up? She was free to walk out of the relationship. Why

didn't she do so? And there is a whole literature that I know

your Honor is familiar with and that we cited in our brief, as

well.

We don't want to get into that in front of the jury in this particular case. This is a blame the victim tactic that shouldn't be allowed. This has very marginal, if any,

probative value and a very significant prejudicial effect

because the jury will potentially blame the victim for staying with her abusive spouse.

Now, in addition, you'll notice from the pleading that

the defendants aren't intent just on asking questions about

this, but they also want to go into the whole criminal case against Ms. Giuffre's husband, you know, whether he appeared or what the felony charges are and a variety of things. That, obviously, has even less probative value than the information I was discussing a moment ago and should be independently excluded.

The next issue up is item 15. And here, we ask to

have excluded any suggestions that sex with a 17-year-old is

permissible. You will recall that there's debate about exactly

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011334