Daubert
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal case | The case of Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, which set forth factors for determining the reliability of ... | N/A | View |
| 1993-01-01 | Legal case | The Daubert case, which established the standard for admitting expert testimony. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00020546.jpg
This document is a court docket from the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, detailing numerous filings entered on November 12, 2021. The entries primarily consist of motions in limine from both the defense (Maxwell's team) and the prosecution (USA) to include or exclude specific evidence, testimony, and exhibits, such as items from a 2005 search and statements from an alleged co-conspirator. The docket also includes a memo endorsement from Judge Alison J. Nathan ordering the submission of lists and redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00005816.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, discusses the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio. The Government intends to use this testimony to provide background on victim behavior, specifically why victims might return to their abusers like the defendant and Epstein. The document also references an October 11, 2021 letter where the Government notified the defense about specific evidence and witness testimony it plans to present at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005792.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, discusses the standards for admitting expert testimony in court. It argues that a district court has broad discretion in determining the reliability of such testimony and that it must also be relevant, concerning matters beyond the understanding of an average juror. The document cites several precedents, focusing on cases where courts admitted expert testimony on the psychological dynamics between perpetrators and victims of sex crimes, such as the 'pimp-prostitute relationship' and 'trauma bonding'.
DOJ-OGR-00005791.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 29, 2021, which discusses the legal standards for the admissibility of expert testimony. It cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Felder and Kumho Tire, to argue that an expert's testimony can be based on personal experience and that it is generally the jury's role, not the court's, to resolve conflicting expert opinions. The document concludes by asserting that the rejection of expert testimony should be an exception.
DOJ-OGR-00005790.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically page 7 of document 397 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It outlines the legal standard for admitting expert testimony under the 'Daubert' framework, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and numerous precedent cases. The text explains that a court must first assess an expert's qualifications and then determine if their testimony is both relevant and reliable, detailing several criteria for establishing reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
This legal document, page 16 of a filing from October 29, 2021, argues that the proposed expert testimony and 'grooming opinions' of an individual named Roccio should be deemed inadmissible. The author contends that Roccio's testimony is substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403, fails to meet the Daubert standard for scientific reliability, and oversimplifies complex issues, thereby risking misleading the jury. The argument is supported by citations from several court cases, including United States v. Burns and Gonyer, which criticize similar 'grooming theories'.
DOJ-OGR-00005633.jpg
This page from a legal filing discusses the standards for the admissibility of expert witness testimony. It cites several key legal precedents, including Daubert and Kumho Tire, to outline the court's responsibility to ensure an expert's opinion is reliable and based on sound methodology. The document also specifies that even if testimony meets these standards, it can be excluded under other rules, such as Rule 704, which prohibits experts in criminal cases from opining on a defendant's mental state.
DOJ-OGR-00005625.jpg
This document is the cover page for a legal motion filed on October 29, 2021, in the case of United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The motion, submitted by Maxwell's legal team, seeks to exclude evidence based on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the precedent set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, and requests a hearing on the matter. The document lists the names and contact information for Maxwell's attorneys from three different law firms.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity