Document Mentions (6 shared documents)

EFTA00070837

3 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

d States v. Stroming, 838 F. App'x 624 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) 15 United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997) 15 United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) 3 United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 16 United States v. We

OF DR. ELIZABETH LOFTUS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED 25 A. Background 25 B. Applicable Law 26 C. Discussion 30 I. Unobjectionable Opinions by Dr. Loftus 30 2. Commonsense Principles Within the Ken of the Jury 30 3. Opinions Bearing on Witness Credibility and Demeanor 31 4. Factual Narratives Abo

g that "the design of these surveys demonstrates their limited value." Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 11. The court found that the survey design used in Loftus's article was "based primarily on hypothetical situations involving eyewitness identification and the credibility of eyewitnesses." Id. The court 1

EFTA00068501

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

" 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

ent's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio. The Government on November 8, 2021, filed a motion to partially preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. Dkt. No. 424. The Court has already addressed that motion. On November 15, 2021, the Government moved to fully or partially preclude the testimony

Document Mentions (6 shared documents)

Mutual Connections (521)

Document Mentions (6 shared documents)

Mutual Connections (521)