EFTA00068582

400 
LBUCmax7 
godfather-like figure when she was growing up who helped the 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
family. I anticipate that 
will testify that 
told him 
during these conversations that the money was not for free, 
that she had to do things that she didn't want to do, that that 
included massages. I also anticipate that 
would testify 
that there was a woman in the room and he recalls 
describing that a woman was present while this happened who 
would make her and other girls who were in the room feel 
comfortable while it happened. 
THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim. 
MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, I think it's somewhat 
premature since the cross examination has not been concluded 
yet. I am mindful of the purpose why they're calling this 
witness, but I think we have to wait to see what happens in 
cross examination. I don't understand what they're asking for 
right now. 
MS. MOE: Your Honor, defense counsel put this issue 
in their opening statement by challenging 
credibility 
and her memory in particular. So the foundation is in the 
record for a prior consistent statement to be admitted under 
both prongs of the rule. 
With respect to the first prong of 801(d)(1)(B), it is 
offered to rebut an express or implied charge the declarant 
recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper 
influence or motive in so testifying. 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068862

401 
LBUCmax7 
Here defense counsel, in opening statements, suggested 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
to the jury that a recent motive to fabricate in this case was 
civil litigation in a particular Jeffrey Epstein victim 
compensation fund. So this statement is offered expressly to 
rebut that because, in fact, 
had told someone about this a 
decade before that or more. 
With respect to the second prong of the rule, the 
statement is proper to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility 
as a witness when attacked on another ground. The advisory 
committee notes the rule expressly explained that one of the 
grounds for rehabilitation is when that witness's memory has 
been challenged, and here given this witness had made that 
statement much earlier in time closer to the events, this 
statement would be appropriate under the second prong of the 
rule, as well. 
MS. STERNHEIM: My response is still I think we need 
to wait until her cross examination is over. I understand what 
they are intending to do. It has to be evaluated whether the 
statement that they allege she made to Matt is really a prior 
consistent statement on her. 
MS. MOE: Your Honor, in our view --
THE COURT: Isn't the question whether it's a prior 
consistent statement with what she testified on direct? 
MS. STERNHEIM: It's not entirely clear because her 
statement to him is extraordinarily vague and he did research 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068863

402 
LBUCmax7 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
and put it together by himself. 
THE COURT: You can cross him on that. 
MS. STERNHEIM: I understand that. I'm not 
challenging. I'm just saying that I think the full issue 
should be addressed at the conclusion of this witness's 
testimony. 
THE COURT: All right. We'll address it at the 
conclusion of the witness's testimony. I understand the 
government's point to be that the prongs of the rule are both 
put in issue by the defense's opening, attacking, I suppose, 
all of the witness's credibility on memory, on recent 
fabrication, and monetary incentive. So I suppose the 
government's position, if I understand it, is that in light of 
that opening, any prior consistent statement of any of the 
witnesses comes in. Is that the contention? 
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Defense counsel has kicked 
the door wide open. So under both prongs of the rule, all 
prior consistent statements of the witnesses in this case are 
admissible. 
THE COURT: Do you anticipate beyond the next witness 
the same issue occurring? 
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, with respect to other 
victims in this case. 
THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, your view is that the 
opening hasn't sufficiently put the specific credibility of 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068864

403 
LBUCmax7 
each of the witnesses in issue such that the rule would allow 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
prior consistent statements? I suppose 
a particular statement being offered is 
testimony, but I don't know that it has 
the question is whether 
consistent with the 
to be with respect to 
cross. It seems to me it has to be with respect to direct, 
because you asked the jury essentially to evaluate all of the 
witnesses' testimony as being motivated by memory issues, 
manipulation, and monetary motivations. 
So I think that's the issue. I'll certainly think 
about that question and then consider the -- I think this is a 
useful example. I'm happy to hear -- I mean, it strikes me 
that's right, but I'm happy to hear why that 
MS. STERNHEIM: I'm not suggesting, 
for an opportunity to dovetail her testimony 
wouldn't 
I'm just 
with the 
be right. 
asking 
statement 
that is the support for the next witness's testimony. I'm not 
seeking to preclude, I'm just asking for an opportunity on the 
issue of prior consistency. 
THE COURT: We can pick this up in the morning, but 
the government made a specific proffer of anticipated testimony 
based on direct testimony, which is to say -- I mean, when the 
witness is testifying, you could say that's not consistent with 
the prior testimony. Is that what you want to do? 
MS. STERNHEIM: I'm just asking for an opportunity to 
compare it. I am not standing here saying I'm opposing it. 
THE COURT: I got it. So it's not about the cross of 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068865

404 
LBUCmax7 
this witness, it's about the direct of the next witness; fair 
to say? 
MS. STERNHEIM: Yes. And there could be redirect that 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
might, in some way, have bearing on this, but I will review it 
in connection with the direct examination of this witness. 
THE COURT: Okay. 
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. 
THE COURT: Thank you for previewing it. We'll take 
it as it comes. I understand the government's position, I 
understand Ms. Sternheim's request to evaluate it. It's the 
specific testimony that comes in on direct of the next witness 
in light of what happens yet on cross. 
Anything else? 
MS. MOE: Not from the government, your Honor. Thank 
you. 
THE COURT: We'll meet again at 8:45. As soon as we 
have the jury, we'll take up issues, I'll see a briefing, and 
hopefully we can get resolution and we'll start with the jury 
as soon as there here. We're adjourned. 
(Adjourned to December 1, 2021 at 8:45 a.m.) 
* 
* 
* 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068866

405 
Examination of: 
INDEX OF EXAMINATION 
Page 
4 
Direct By Ms. Comey 
 
138 
5 
Cross By Mr. Everdell 
 
182 
6 
Redirect By Ms. Comey 
 
281 
7 
8 
Direct By Ms. Moe 
 
286 
9 
Cross By Ms. Menninger  
363 
10 
GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 
11 
Exhibit No. 
Received 
12 
327, 310 
 
141 
13 
334, 335 
 
142 
14 
328 
143 
15 
323, 706 
 
148 
16 
705 
152 
17 
346 
155 
18 
308 
156 
19 
326 
157 
20 
703 
158 
21 
311, 312 
 
163 
22 
344, 345 
 
164 
23 
315, 336 
 
165 
24 
301, 302 
 
167 
25 
303 
169 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068867

406 
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 1004 
 
176 
106 
290 
107 
325 
4 
108 
326 
5 
245 
341 
6 
DEFENDANT EXHIBITS 
7 
Exhibit No. 
Received 
8 
LV3A, LV3B 
 
227 
9 
LV4, LV5  
231 
10 
JOINT EXHIBITS 
11 
J-3  
389 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. 
(212) 805-0300 
EFTA00068868