Epstein Secrets

ys 111:8 H Hafele 1:16 half 52:22 65:18 82:3 band 21:16 56:8 74:18 91:14 118:14 121:14 handed 7:

iled by 14 character are imodiately lepOred. IS Mr. Link to talk about his seeking a Frye or 15 This is civil. In civil it revive➢ damage➢ If Daubert analysis. 16 proximately caused. And it'➢ not a Frye analysis, 17 MR. BURLINGTON: Correct. That's my reading 17 it'➢ not a Daubert analy➢i➢, it

ys 111:8 H Hafele 1:16 half 52:22 65:18 82:3 band 21:16 56:8 74:18 91:14 118:14 121:14 handed 7:

iled by 14 character are imodiately lepOred. IS Mr. Link to talk about his seeking a Frye or 15 This is civil. In civil it revive➢ damage➢ If Daubert analysis. 16 proximately caused. And it'➢ not a Frye analysis, 17 MR. BURLINGTON: Correct. That's my reading 17 it'➢ not a Daubert analy➢i➢, it

in actual sexual conduct"); United States v. Brand, No. 04 Cr. 194 (PICL), 2005 WL 77055, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) (admitting "evidence that Brand exhibited an interest in child erotica and child pornography on the intemet in the period leading up to the charged conduct" under Rule 404(b) 51

e Government has given notice of a qualified expert who will provide reliable and relevant opinions, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (See Def. Mot. 3). Second, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible both as dir

t is the Defense'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

ty 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 that defi