DOJ-OGR-00005754.jpg
532 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
532 KB
Summary
This document is the conclusion of a legal filing, dated October 18, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The author argues that the Court should prohibit any law enforcement witness from giving expert opinion testimony because the officers were not properly disclosed as experts under Rule 16(1)(G), and such testimony would violate Rule 702. The argument extends to witnesses called by either the government or the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned in a footnote as the defendant who has not disclosed or endorsed law enforcement officers as expert witness...
|
| Mejia | Party in a cited case |
Cited in the case 'Mejia, 545 F.3d at 192' regarding the impermissibility of law enforcement witnesses making 'sweepi...
|
| Lombardozzi | Party in a cited case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2007)' in the context of testimonial hearsay.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Government agency |
The document is addressed to the Court, asking it to preclude certain testimony.
|
| United States Government | Government agency |
Referred to as 'the government' and 'prosecution', the opposing party in the legal case against Ms. Maxwell. Also cit...
|
Timeline (1 events)
The document discusses the rules of evidence for an upcoming trial, specifically regarding expert opinion testimony that might be offered.
Court
Relationships (1)
The document details a legal argument from Ms. Maxwell's defense against the government (prosecution) concerning the admissibility of witness testimony at trial.
Key Quotes (1)
"vulnerable to making ‘sweeping conclusions’ about the defendants’ activities,"Source
— Cited from Mejia, 545 F.3d at 192
(A quote from a cited legal case used in a footnote to argue that testimony from law enforcement witnesses, particularly case agents, is impermissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00005754.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,245 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 393 Filed 10/29/21 Page 8 of 10
prosecution about participation in prior and similar cases, the possibility that the jury will give undue weight to the expert’s testimony is greatly increased.”).²
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, this Court should preclude any law enforcement witness from offering expert opinion testimony.³ The officers have not been disclosed as experts under Rule 16(1)(G), and therefore any opinions they might offer at trial would violate Rule 702.
Dated: October 18, 2021
e-/-
² Law enforcement witnesses, particularly case agents, are “vulnerable to making ‘sweeping conclusions’ about the defendants’ activities,” which is impermissible. Mejia, 545 F.3d at 192. Their testimony also often relies on testimonial hearsay, depriving the defendant of her constitutional right to confrontation. U.S. Const. amend. VI; see United States v. Lombardozzi, 491 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2007).
³ The Court should preclude expert opinion testimony not only from the law enforcement witnesses the government calls in its case-in-chief, but also any law enforcement witnesses Ms. Maxwell calls in her defense. Ms. Maxwell has not disclosed or endorsed these law enforcement officers as expert witnesses, so the government cannot use cross-examination of these officers to elicit expert opinion testimony that would be inadmissible if offered on direct examination.
5
DOJ-OGR-00005754
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document