The defense's rebuttal to the State's Motion to Strike or Limit Testimony Related to Jeff Pepstein
To 1: Rule 804b3AB, statements against interest if the Declarant is unavailable. Jeff Pepstein’s dead; he's unavailable. 803(2), excited utterances. 803(1) Present Sense Impressions. 803(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity and 803(8) Public Records are usually excluded by the confrontation clause in criminal cases if they are excluded, but this clause does not apply when the statements are not being used to establish guilt against the subject. This is a criminal trial against Ash Li, not Jeff Pepstein. Not to mention that Jeff Pepstein is dead and has no need or ability to confront any accusations. Striking for the confrontation clause would only serve to obfuscate the truth of the matter for a non-existent and non-applicable interest of Jeff Pepstein’s rights to face an accuser. 1. These aren’t being used as criminal accusations against him. 2. He’s dead; there's no possibility of these being used as criminal accusations against him. Regardless, any of statements applicable to 803(8) or 803(6) would need to have the opponent show the source of information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trust-worthiness. This is something yet to be argued.
To 2: It’s supported. Ash Li claims of duress, details of her duress, and there is evidence submitted and witness testimony that corroborates her duress claims. Non-starter.
To 3: These are corroborating witnesses. Ched Chaddington is stated in the transcript to have had direct communication with Ash Li regarding her state of mind, not to mention can corroborate statements of duress, as he is directly claimed in evidence to have been a client coerced into weapon trafficking by Jeff Pepstein. Oliver Knight has several statements similar to Ash Li’s on the record, corroborating. Albert Sanchez was a direct witness to previous interactions between Ash Li and Jeff Pepstein and can therefore contribute to corroborating Ash Li’s state of mind. Kye Evans was a direct witness to the interrogation of Ash Li on July 19th by Marie De Lafayette. These interrogation notes have a right to be crossed, and Kye Evans is very qualified to make statements regarding the interrogation details and answers. Khai Shaw has written and witnessed many reports, probably more than anyone, regarding Jeffrey Pepstein and the Oompa-Loompas' actions and associations of violence. These corroborate Ash Li’s claims of Duress. Mark Wheeler and Sami Kareem also wrote and took reports, and were witnesses to similar events of the Oompa-Loompas. For that matter, learning from the mistakes of Sheriff Wrangler in State v. Evans with the Wendigo’s, the existence and nature of these Oompa-Loompas needs to be established and explored under the court record, and all of these witnesses can speak to that in their own novel ways, with different motivations, providing an extremely well qualified image of the nature of the Oompa-Loompas. Not to mention, there are photos and statements littered throughout reports and evidence that need to be testified to, which all of these witnesses contribute to.
To 4: 401(a), Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without evidence, and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. It's a duress argument. If Li claims that there were certain actions of violence, coercion, and kidnapping taken against her by the Oompla-Loompas or Jeff Pepstein, any evidence showing past incidents of this or capabilities of this makes it more probable that Ash Li’s claims of this are factual. Any evidence showing the capability, motivations, planning, or simply past will and character makes it more likely that Ash Li’s claims are factual. Proving Jeff Pepstein and the Oompa-Loompa’s character also contributes to this more probability. Rule 404(b) Other crimes, wrongs or acts. Permitted uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. You can’t exclude multiple weeks of ongoing weapons trafficking, duress, and coercion into the 5-minute period of an arrest on a tarmac.
Regardless, let the court be aware, Ash Li will take the stand. She will testify to her duress, and her testimony will be corroborated by other evidence submitted and other witnesses’ testimony.
