HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011383

id.

ne)

life)

80 H3VOGIU1

prescribed over a period of time, and you'll understand that

this is not a situation of someone being a drugee and doctor

shopping, something that's in the news a lot these days. So

trying to submit it that way is not only irrelevant to this

case, but the prejudice greatly outweighs whatever probative

value it might be. Ms. Giuffre would not, of course, object to

testifying with regard to what current medication she takes, but that's a different subject altogether.

With regard to criminal history, as I mentioned,

Ms. Giuffre denied that she stole the money. She said her boyfriend took the money while he was there with her. And defense counsel reminded Court that this victim is a thief.

Again, none of this information comes in under the Federal

Rules of Evidence. Even the charging document and the warrant are classic hearsay and should be excluded. With regard to the next one, I'm going to skip ahead

to school records. The records don't show that she was in

school, as much as defendant seems to think she is. They don't

have also what days she attended and what days she doesn't. It

doesn't say that she was there on, for example, May 23rd, 2000

What they do show is that there are no courses taken between 1999 and the 2000 school year, and no courses taken during the 2000 to 2001 school years.

Ms. Giuffer's attempt to work and resume school at

another school as as a tenth grader in the 2001 to 2002 school

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

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011383