Epstein Secrets

. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt. No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part Defendant's motion, to be followed by this op

probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's antici

prevent disclosure. (Id. 18 EFTA00088820 (emphasis added)). Dr. testimony will also include discussion of techniques used by perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio's testimony regarding such techniques is supported by Dr. review of the relevant literature, see Exhibit A, and through her clinical work. By virtue

st this weight of authority, the defendant relies principally on one case from the District of Maine. United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). The proposed 13 EFTA00088815 testimony in this case is readily distinguishable from that in Raymond. There, the government gave notice o

. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt. No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part Defendant's motion, to be followed by this op

probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's antici

. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conducted a Daubert hearing on November 10, 2021, at which both parties examined Dr. Rocchio. Dkt. No. 431. The Court stated its oral opinion at that hearing that it would deny and grant in part Defendant's motion, to be followed by this op

probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's antici