aba iB) H3vlgiu2 ih and the case says, it's undisputed the defendant had actual 2 prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that 3 were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were made 4 C6 CYESGENRZ.. 5 And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v. 6 Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective 7 reasonableness by the officers who conducted a search of a 8 building. I think the Court knows from doing this kind of work 9 that pretty much anything in an officer's head is allowed ina 10 qualified immunity case, because whether the officer did 1a something that was objectively reasonable or not depends on 12 what's in the officer's head, and so there is (A) an exception 13 in these kinds of cases, but (B), in fact, the evidence that 14 was being discussed in the qualified immunity situation related 15 to statements that the officers had heard, which formed the 16 basis of why they went into a building. de So in each and every one of these cases and all cases 18 that deal with state of mind, the person who it is being 19 introduced either for or against, not for the truth of the 20 matter asserted but for their state of mind, has to know about 21 it. 22 You have attached to our reply an affidavit from 23 Ms. Maxwell who says she's never read any of these police 24 reports prior to January 2015. And there is good reason for 25 that, your Honor. It's not easy to get these police reports. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011418