UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA::- v - :S1 11 Cr. 907 (JSR):RAJAT K. GUPTA,::Defendant. ::--------------------------------------------------------------X
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINEFOR THE ADMISSION OF CERTAIN STATEMENTS
PREET BHARARAUnited States Attorney for theSouthern District of New York REED BRODSKYRICHARD TARLOWE – Of Counsel –
TABLE OF CONTENTSI.Background.............................................................3II.Applicable Law..........................................................4A.Rule 804(b)(3): Statements Against Interest..............................41.Whether The Declarant Is Unavailable............................52.Whether The Statement Is Against Interest.........................63.Whether Corroborating Circumstances Clearly Indicate TheTrustworthiness Of The Statement...............................7B.Rule 801(d)(2)(E): Co-Conspirator Statements During The CourseAnd In Furtherance Of The Conspiracy..................................8C.Rule 807: The Residual Exception To The Hearsay Rule...................11III.The Court Should Admit Rajaratnam’s Statements to Horowitz During TheWiretapped Telephone Conversations On September 24, 2008....................14A.Relevant Facts....................................................14B.Discussion.......................................................181.Rajaratnam’s Statements Are Admissible As StatementsAgainst Interest Under Rule 804(b)(3)...........................18a.Rajaratnam Is Unavailable...............................19 b.The Statements Were Self-Inculpatory.....................19c.Corroborating Circumstances Clearly Indicate TheTrustworthiness Of The Statements........................222.Rajaratnam’s Statements Are Admissible As Co-Conspirator Statements Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).............................24a.There Was A Conspiracy Of Which Gupta and RajaratnamWere Members........................................24 b.The Statements Were Made During The Course AndIn Furtherance Of The Conspiracy.........................25
i.The Statements Served A Number Of Current PurposesIn The Charged Conspiracy ........................25ii.Horowitz Played An Important Role in HelpingRajaratnam Carry Out The Charged Conspiracy........28iii.Horowitz’s Participation Was, At A Minimum,Reasonably Foreseeable to Gupta...................313.Rajaratnam’s Statements Are Admissible Under TheResidual Exception To The Hearsay Rule.........................33IV.The Court Should Admit Rajaratnam’s Statements To David Lau DuringThe October 24, 2008 Wiretapped Call.......................................35A.Relevant Facts....................................................35B.Discussion.......................................................381.Rajaratnam’s Statements Are Admissible As StatementsAgainst Interest Under Rule 804(b)(3)...........................382.Rajaratnam’s Statements Are Admissible As Co-Conspirator Statements Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).............................403.Rajaratnam’s Statements Are Admissible Under The ResidualException To The Hearsay Rule................................41V.Conclusion.............................................................43
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
