Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 11/11/21 20-CR-330 (MN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

mental state when performing the behaviors. Second, the Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as the Second Circuit has explained, expert testimony cannot "constitute evaluations of witness credi

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

ns are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as

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

Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony is silent as to whether she is expected to impute a theory of `grooming-by-proxy' to the defendant," and that "Ms. Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualized massages for herself," but instead that she "recruited and grooming minors to provide sexualized

K UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW

K UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM

`grooming-by-proxy' to the defendant," and that "Ms. Maxwell is not accused of soliciting or enticing sexualiz

mony is simply an attempt to invade the province of the jury by putting a thumb on the scale in their assessment of witness credibility.6 See, e.g., Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398 ("[E]xpert opinions that constitute evaluations of witness credibility, even when such evaluations are rooted in scientific or tec

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 11/11/21 20-CR-330 (MN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

mental state when performing the behaviors. Second, the Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as the Second Circuit has explained, expert testimony cannot "constitute evaluations of witness credi

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

ns are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 11/11/21 20-CR-330 (MN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

mental state when performing the behaviors. Second, the Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as the Second Circuit has explained, expert testimony cannot "constitute evaluations of witness credi

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

ns are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 11/22/21 20-CR-330 (MN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN,

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTR

t v. Merrell Dow Phanns., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993)). 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 Daubert need rely on a method that confor

ed, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the 4 EFTA00014704 --- PAGE BREAK --- investigation are all irrelevant" to Ms. Maxwell's guilt. Id. at 19 (quoting United States v. Duncan, No. 18-CR-289, 2019 WL 2210663 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)). The Court concludes that the expected topics

E BREAK --- investigation are all irrelevant" to Ms. Maxwell's guilt. Id. at 19 (quoting United States v. Dun

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 11/11/21 20-CR-330 (MN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Ju

TRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTR

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

mental state when performing the behaviors. Second, the Court finds that Dr. Rocchio's opinions are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as the Second Circuit has explained, expert testimony cannot "constitute evaluations of witness credi

ns are relevant to the Government's case against Ms. Maxwell. Two points of law bear mention here. For one, as

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF DR. RYAN HALL, BENNETT GERSHMAN

roposed expert testimony is reliable, and (3) the proposed 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, e