HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011418

id.

ne)

life)

115 H3vlgiu2

and the case says, it's undisputed the defendant had actual

prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that

were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were mad to Crescenz. And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v.

Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective

reasonableness by the officers who conducted a search of a building. I think the Court knows from doing this kind of work

that pretty much anything in an officer's head is allowed in a

qualified immunity case, because whether the officer did

something that was objectively reasonable or not depends on

what's in the officer's head, and so there is (A) an exception

in these kinds of cases, but (B), in fact, the evidence that

was being discussed in the qualified immunity situation related

to statements that the officers had heard, which formed the basis of why they went into a building. So in each and every one of these cases and all cases

that deal with state of mind, the person who it is being

introduced either for or against, not for the truth of the

matter asserted but for their state of mind, has to know about aL

You have attached to our reply an affidavit from Ms. Maxwell who says she's never read any of these police reports prior to January 2015. And there is good reason for

that, your Honor. It's not easy to get these police reports.

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

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011418