Epstein Secrets

, 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 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021). Their decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to c

ed on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abuse of minors. See United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006). The Defense cites to several contrary articles that suggest experts disagree on the kinds of behaviors

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

ense may make arguments attacking the credibility of victims, the Government is free to argue that these witnesses are, in fact, victims of a crime. Cl United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 807 (2d Cir. 1994) (explaining that prosecutors may also "respond to an argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity

y this form of testimony, as explained above. To the extent Raymond stands for such a broad proposition, it is contrary to the law of this Circuit. See United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13, 21-22 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 276 n.14 (2d Cir.

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

utweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if so requested by the defendant." United States v. Arroyo, 600 F. App'x II, 13 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Lanam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). are offered for im

n which apparently relied in reaching her conclusions. This Court should reject the government's untimely effort to save testimony from exclusion. See United States v. Lewis, 818 F. App'x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (affirming exclusion of defendant's proffered expert evidence "that did not adhere to th

(S.D.N.Y. 2020) 37 United States v. Golyansky, 291 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2002) 4 United States v. Gonyer, No. 1:12-CR-00021-JAW, 2012 WL 3043020 (D. Me. July 24, 2012)20 United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) 38 United States v. United States v. Un

, 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 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021). Their decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to c

ed on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abuse of minors. See United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006). The Defense cites to several contrary articles that suggest experts disagree on the kinds of behaviors

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

, 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 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021). Their decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to c

ed on the admissibility of a grooming expert, it has previously recognized the academic literature on grooming to facilitate sexual abuse of minors. See United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir. 2006). The Defense cites to several contrary articles that suggest experts disagree on the kinds of behaviors

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

y had been in his home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the

n in effect until you arc granted leave to depart by the court or by an officer acting • ni behalf of the court. poem) is issued upon application 'Med States of America DATE: March 2, 2007 Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. Attorney ssistant U.S. Attorney 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West

ts irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants, granted a motion to quash with re

y had been in his home and/or belonged to him, which would, in turn, at a minimum, implicitly authenticate the contents of the materials. See, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 2003 WL 23024461 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. December 29, 2003) (act of production privileged where government's claimed relevance for requiring the

ts irrelevant to the grand jury inquiry and was, therefore, unreasonably broad under Rule 17. Likewise, in In re Amato, 2005 WL 1429743 at *11-*12 (D. Me. June 17, 2005), the Court, relying on a number of cases dealing with searches of computers pursuant to warrants, granted a motion to quash with re