Epstein Secrets

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.

idespread use for decades to come."); Bennett & O'Donohue, "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues," 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 964-68 (2014) (reviewing the literature on the prevalence of various grooming techniques); Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children:

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 See United States v. Lewis, 818 F. App'x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (affirming exclusion of defendant's proffered expert evidence "that did not adhere to th

ticle describing "grooming" as a "construct." Resp, Ex. A, Natalie Bennett & William O'Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014). (In fact, Ms. Maxwell cited this article in her motion.) Far from supporting conclusions, the article proves their unreliab

ing juror sympathy."). Any attempt to encourage such sympathy is therefore an attempt at nullification, which is itself plainly improper. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 615 (2d Cir. 1997) (Jury nullification is "by no means a right or 3 Evidence of the defendant's motive may be relevant evid

8 Yates v. State, 171 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App. 2005) 17 Other Authorities Bennett & O'Donohue, "The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957 (2014) 10 Craven et al., "Sexual grooming of children," 12 J. Sexual Aggression 287 (2006) 10 Diamond et al., "The Truth is Out There: A