Epstein Secrets

ates v. Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 1995) 11 iii EFTA00103712 United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 (1932) 5, 9 United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2015) 15 Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017) passim Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 2422 2, 16, 17 18 U.S.C

legislative history at issue did not clearly evidence Congress' intent regarding retroactivity. Id. That is not the case here. As Judge Katzman of the Second Circuit has recognized, unambiguous legislative history should not be disregarded: When courts construe statutes in ways that respect what legislators cons

" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Merely identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is i

ruthfully at trial, or to maintain a clear recollection in the meantime." (cleaned up)). Indeed, the First Circuit in a case cited favorably both by the Second Circuit and by the Defense concluded that there was an inadequate link between borderline personality disorder and a witness's credibility. United States v

" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Merely identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is i

ruthfully at trial, or to maintain a clear recollection in the meantime." (cleaned up)). Indeed, the First Circuit in a case cited favorably both by the Second Circuit and by the Defense concluded that there was an inadequate link between borderline personality disorder and a witness's credibility. United States v

general topics about which the expert will testify is insufficient; rather, the summary must reveal the expert's actual opinions." United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013); see Ulbricht, 858 F.3d at 115 (calling "plainly inadequate" a disclosure that

posed testimony is relevant. See Dauber! v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993); Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396 n.11 (2d Cir. 2005). "Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful." Daubers, 509 U.S. at 591 (internal

res his opinions have no apparent relevance, and because even the current disclosures are vague yet disclosed relatively close to trial. See, e.g., Valle, 2013 WL 440687, at *6 (ordering rapid supplemental disclosure). 15 EFTA00024970 --- PAGE BREAK --- If Dr. Hall had some admissible substantive

the case. The Court exercises a "gatekeeper function" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessernann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, i

" and "describe the bases for the experts' opinions." United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71, 115 (2d Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); United States v. Valle, No. 12-CR-847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) ("Merely identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is i