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

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

ense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conduc

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, —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

ense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conduc

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

ense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conduc

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

ense's motion to exclude the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standard in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dkt. No. 386. The Government filed a response brief, Dkt. No. 397, and Defendant filed a reply, Dkt. No. 398. The Court conduc

:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 421 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 11 /8/21 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: A con

EW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY

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

ion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November 1, 2021 confe

:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 421 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 11 /8/21 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: A con

EW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY

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

ion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November 1, 2021 confe

:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 409 Filed 11/03/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC DATE FILED: 1 1 /3/21 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The

EW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY

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

ion under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386, and the other outstanding issues that overlap with these two motions as discussed at the November I, 2021 confe

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: 10/31/21 20-CR-330 (AJN) ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The

EW YORK United States of America, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SONY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY

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

under Federal Rule of Evidence 412, Dkt. No. 378, and the Defendant's motion in limine to exclude under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Dkt. No. 386. The issues raised in the two motions overlap significantly. The Court is required under Federal Rule of Evidenc