HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011445

id.

ne)

life)

142 H3vlgiu2

The final point that the LiButti case directs you to

consider is whether admitting the evidence will advance the search for truth. And here we have a conspiracy, and I'm using

that term not as a lawyer but as a layperson for this purpose.

Webster's defines to conspire means to join together ina

secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act

which becomes unlawful as a result of a secret agreement. And so we want to present the conspirator. Now we think that makes

the case that this is highly relevant and also appropriate for

an adverse inference. Again, your Honor could wait to rule on

this at trial, but we think it's clear-cut now.

Of course once you determine that something's

relevant, you then have to consider possible prejudicial

effect. Obviously this is a case in which sex allegations are going to be at their heart. It's not like we have a business dispute where somebody wants to throw in sex abuse. We want to

prove, in a case involving a sex conspiracy, what the

conspirators have to say. And there's no prejudice then to

Maxwell in the sense of unfair prejudice. He can ask whatever

questions they deem appropriate as well. But the absence of the co-conspirators is of course highly prejudicial to

Ms. Giuffre. Naturally the jury is going to wonder, you said

Kellen was reporting to Maxwell. Where is Kellen? That's

going to be the first thing they'll say when they go back into

the jury room. Where are these people? And that's what

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

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011445