692.pdf

Type: pdf
Source set: house-oversight-doj
Pages: 17
Text status: Searchable text available
OCR confidence: 0.9294774713880399

Extracted text

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page1of17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK we impideteeiced DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED pOCc#_ DATE FILED:11/22/21 United States of America, -~y- 20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM Ghislaine Maxwell, OPINION & ORDER Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Defense on November 1, 2021, noticed eight expert witnesses. Def. Br., Ex. 1 (“Notice”). Two of those experts, Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, are expected to offer opinions that rebut opinions of the Government’s expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio. The Government on November 8, 2021, filed a motion to partially preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. Dkt. No. 424. The Court has already addressed that motion. On November 15, 2021, the Government moved to fully or partially preclude the testimony of the remaining six experts. The Defense filed a response on November 19, 2021. The Court addresses the motion to preclude Dr. Hall in this separate opinion. It will address the other five experts in public rulings. I. Legal standard Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule states: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: DOJ-OGR-00011139

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page2of17 (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The Court exercises a “gatekeeper function” in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert’s method is reliab…

Open in the interactive archive →