Epstein Secrets

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 Daubers, i

ite common[ ]" and accepted in the academic literature. 385 F. Supp. 3d at 263. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18- Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt.

s also provided several articles on the subject of grooming that convince the Court that it is a well-accepted theory in Dr. Rocchio's field. Though the Second Circuit has not ruled on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abus

ictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused." United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotations marks and citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.

ged crimes, nor must the Government provide a preview of the evidence or legal theories it intends to present at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Dupigny, 18 Cr. 528 (JMF), 2019 WL 2327697, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019) (denying motion for bill of particulars and explaining that the defendant "need no

ictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused." United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotations marks and citation omitted); see also, e.g., United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.

ged crimes, nor must the Government provide a preview of the evidence or legal theories it intends to present at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Dupigny, 18 Cr. 528 (JMF), 2019 WL 2327697, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2019) (denying motion for bill of particulars and explaining that the defendant "need no