From: "I=a)"

From: "I=a)" To: "I= ). Cc: " )" Subject: 2020-03-09, GM, prosecution memo,■update.docx Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 01:05:04 +0000 Attachments: 2020-03-09,GM,_prosecution_memo,Rupdate.docx; Potentialfeduty_by_Maxwell.docx I'm very sorry this took so much longer than I expected, but it's good to go from me, and per our usual I just made edits rather than peppering it with track changes or thought bubbles. Two general thoughts, neither of which I think need to hold it up but just to flag (and potentially talk through with chiefs). First, I continue to be torn about using child endangerment as an underlying sexual activity for which any person could be charged. I think the Fourth Circuit really has the better of the argument on that, and I think a reasonable jury certainly could find that the sexual activity of having a girl who is 14 or 15 or 16 even just massage the feet of a grown man who's masturbating would be "likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare" of the girl and that such conduct would be for the "active pursuit of libidinal gratification." Clearly. And I think if all we established were those facts, we'd be facing a real risk of acquittal or Rule 29. All that said, I'm not wedded to it, I just wonder if either there's a way to do a verdict form that splits it out as an option, or even if not, if the calculated risk is worth it. Somewhat similarly, I confess I'm not wholly persuaded by the argument here on perjury. I think some of her statements will be directly contradicted by our witnesses, including both nd er selected statements are attached for ease of reference). And I don't think it would be hugely difficu o explallinderlying lawsuit and why of course it would be material if she admitted to doing Thing A with Person B in a lawsuit about her accusation that she didn't do Thing A with Person A (basically). Though again, I can easily see the arguments in both directions. But Geoff is going to want it so we should be buttoned up on it either way. Anyway on those two things, I added a footnote on endangerment and slightly softened the perjury section, and other than that just tinkered. m totally happy to discuss anything that's useful, but also don't need to see it again if you want to do any additions e s and send it up (particularly since the edits up the chain will I'm sure be substantial in any event). Thanks for taking the laboring oar on this, and we'll see how it goes. EFTA00090969