Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
63. 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. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. Torres, No. 20-CR-608 (
is inadmissible if it "comment[s] directly, under the guise of expert opinion, on the credibility of trial testimony from" specific fact witnesses. Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398. Additionally, if the expert's "opinion is one that the jury could reach with their own `common knowledge and common sense,' no ex
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
63. 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. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. Torres, No. 20-CR-608 (
is inadmissible if it "comment[s] directly, under the guise of expert opinion, on the credibility of trial testimony from" specific fact witnesses. Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398. Additionally, if the expert's "opinion is one that the jury could reach with their own `common knowledge and common sense,' no ex
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
63. 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. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. Torres, No. 20-CR-608 (
is inadmissible if it "comment[s] directly, under the guise of expert opinion, on the credibility of trial testimony from" specific fact witnesses. Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398. Additionally, if the expert's "opinion is one that the jury could reach with their own `common knowledge and common sense,' no ex
Sponsored
2 mentions
Page EFTA00016472
259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubers, 509 U.S. at 593-94). But Rule 702 ultimately sets a "liberal" and "permissive" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubers need rely on a method that confor
Page: EFTA00016472 →Page EFTA00016474
63. 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. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. Torres, No. 20-CR-608 (
Page: EFTA00016474 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (42)
Entities connected to both Engelmayer and Nimely
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON70 w/ Engelmayer·7 w/ Nimely
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION32 w/ Engelmayer·3 w/ Nimely
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON24 w/ Engelmayer·7 w/ Nimely
Prince Andrew
PERSON21 w/ Engelmayer·2 w/ Nimely
Julie K. Brown
PERSON12 w/ Engelmayer·3 w/ Nimely
DA
Daubert
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·7 w/ Nimely
United States
LOCATION8 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely
Torres
PERSON7 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely
RA
Randall
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·5 w/ Nimely
RO
Rocchio
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·5 w/ Nimely
Russell Simmons
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·5 w/ Nimely
Raymond
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely
Harvey Weinstein
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely
Bloomberg L.P.
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Engelmayer·5 w/ Nimely
DU
Dupigny
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely
LR
Lisa Rocchio
PERSON4 w/ Engelmayer·5 w/ Nimely
HA
Halamek
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely
MU
Mulder
PERSON4 w/ Engelmayer·5 w/ Nimely
TE
Telles
PERSON5 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely
the Seventh Circuit
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Engelmayer·4 w/ Nimely