Browse by Document Type
Other (98,409 documents)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 22 of 24
witness encroaches upon the jury’s vital and exclusive function to make credibility
determinations and therefore does not ‘assist the
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page15 of 24
Corp., 162 F.3d 1158, at *5 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (“An ‘expert’ opinion is considered
unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page18 of 24
Finally, Rocchio’s second opinion is inadmissible under Rules 704 and 403. It’s
inadmissible under Rule 704 because it amounts to an op
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 16 of 24
intent or the truthfulness of the victim’s testimony—does not satisfy the fit or reliability
requirements” of Rule 702); Bennett & O’
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page17 of 24
B. Opinion 2: The relationship of trust and attachment between an alleged
perpetrator and alleged victim prevents victims from being aw
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page14 of 24
assault. See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at *2-3 (precluding “grooming” testimony from
psychologist in prosecution for traveling in for
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page13 of 24
“frequently occurs” are not reliable, because she does not explain how these conclusions were
reached, what testing was involved, what
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 12 of 24
Sept. 22, 2010) (finding expert’s opinion unreliable because the expert testified “that when her
clinical patients tell her they have
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page11of 24
sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography’). To be sure, the
government’s notice and Rocchio’s CV do not point
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page9of24
v. City of N_Y., 414 F.3d. 381, 396 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526
U.S. 137, 152 (1999)). “To decide ‘whether a
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 8of24
Government does not presently intend to offer Dr. Rocchio’s testimony regarding
any specific victim.
Id. at 2.
The government elaborates
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page6of24
Ghislaine Maxwell moves to exclude the proposed testimony of Lisa M. Rocchio, Ph.D.,
under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 404, 7
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page3of24
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) ......ceeeeeeeeeeeeeseeneeees 3,4
Andrew
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS... cceesessecseesscnsesecssessesneseesaeeaeesecneeseenaeseesaesaesaesaevseeneeseenaeseesaesaeeaeen
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page4of24
United States v. Serna, 799 F.2d 842 (2d Cir.1986) oo... eeeceseesseeseeseeseeseesseceesseeseesseesaeeaeenaesas 14
Wehling v. Sandoz Pharm
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page3of3
Page 2
This evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative,
pursuant to Rule 404(b) as proof of
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page1of3
EXHIBIT A
DOJ-OGR-00006584
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page10of12
Indictment. It is hard to imagine how an adult women fixing up single adult males with adult
females is "direct evidence" of a conspiracy
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page11o0f12
404(b) Notice by May 28, a date that was extended to October 11 after the continuance of the
trial. Dkt. 229 at 3. The failure to comply
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page9of12
the admissibility of the other act evidence." Wright & Miller, supra. Should the Government
request a "good-cause" exemption for their fai
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page 7of12
ARGUMENT
I. By Failing to Comply with the Rule 404(b) Notice Requirement, the
Government Has Waived the Admission of Any Evidence Pursua
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page5of12
After December 2020, according to the Advisory Committee, the new subsection (B)
requires that:
The prosecution must not only identify th
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page4of12
Ghislaine Maxwell moves in limine to exclude any evidence the Government seeks to
admit at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (the “Rule”).
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page3of12
TABLES OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2006) 0... cee cecseseseeeeeeeseessecseesaeeseeeseesseenaesaeese
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page2of12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND 1... ceceeceseecnsessessessesseeaeesecneesecssessesaesseaeeaevseeneeseensessesaesseaesnevereneeseenaesaesaes
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441-1 Filed 11/12/21 Page1of3
EXHIBIT 1
DOJ-OGR-00006569
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441 Filed 11/12/21 Page9of12
The Court emphasized that the defendant had acted willfully and in bad faith in not disclosing
the witness until the second day of trial a
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441 Filed 11/12/21 Page8of12
IV. Preclusion of the Purported Statements is the Only Appropriate Remedy
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(C) provides that if a party fails to
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441 Filed 11/12/21 Page11o0f12
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca
Laura A. Menninger
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.
150 East 10th Av
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document441 Filed 11/12/21 Page10of12
willfully violated the Order and has refused to produce statements that it obviously (1) is aware
of and (2) could be easily identified by
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441 Filed 11/12/21 Page4of12
Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, through counsel, requests that the Court enter an order
precluding the government from introducing any allege
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441 Filed 11/12/21 Page5of12
it intends to offer at trial ... in the Government’s production today or in its previous
productions.” And, circumnavigating this Court’s
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441 Filed 11/12/21 Page3of12
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Taylor v. Hlinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988)... ceceeeeeeeeeeneecseeceeeeeeneeseeecaeecaeeeeeeeseeesseeceaeesenesen
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 39 of 40
inflammatory and prejudicial statement or questions by the defense. The Court should not indulge
the defense’s effort to get these inf
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 441 Filed 11/12/21 Page2of12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...........ceeeceescessseceeceesscecesceesseecsaccssceesnsecaeeesneecsascsscevensecessersaeecsasensae
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 36 of 40
F. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not
Witnesses at Trial
The defendant does not appea
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 35 of 40
E. The Government’s Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant
The defense claims it is proper to cast aspersions on the Government’s alleged mot
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 32 of 40
In any event, even if the NPA were admissible, that would not open the door to introducing
the defense’s wish list of arguments about
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 28 of 40
“cross-examined the detectives” about the identification procedure and “pointed out that [the
defendant] was charged even though he ha
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 27 of 40
particular set of circumstances, and none address evidentiary rulings. Instead, these cases concern
Brady errors involving the withhol
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 26 of 40
United States v. Miles, 748 F.3d 485, 489 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
It is elementa
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 25 of 40
permit this. As the Government has explained, for many of the subjects of the Government’s
motions, any evidence or argument is irrele
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 24 of 40
to put before this jury illustrates the side show the defense hopes to create. Those conspiracy
theories include, among other things,
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 23 of 40
Government need not wait until the witness is cross-examined. See United States v. Flores, 945
F.3d 687, 706 (2d Cir. 2019).
Followin
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 22 of 40
The Government is seeking an order issued in many other cases to protect the privacy and
dignity of Minor Victims who will take the st
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page17 of 40
a
every reason to believe that, if the Court orders that Minor Victims be permitted to testify under
pseudonyms, many major publication
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 18 of 40
that might be relevant to the jury’s deliberations as to the credibility or knowledgeability of the
witness.” Marcus, 2007 WL 330388,
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page15 of 40
C. The Government’s Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests
The Government has proposed permitting Minor Victim-1, Minor Victim-
Government’s proposal, the Minor Victims’ names will not be said in open court. A person in the
gallery, or a person reading the transcript, cannot simply write down the Minor Victims’ names
and put
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page13 of 40
3. Minor Victim-4
Regarding Minor Victim-4, the defense motion largely focuses on disparaging her
credibility. (See Def. Opp. at 12-15