Event Details

This document is the cover page for 'Exhibit 2', filed on October 29, 2021, as part of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The document is page 1 of a 12-page exhibit and includes a Department of Justice (DOJ) bates number, indicating its origin or handling by that agency.

This document is the signature page of a court filing (Document 386) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. It lists the legal counsel representing Ghislaine Maxwell, including attorneys Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Laura A. Menninger, Christian R. Everdell, and Bobbi C. Sternheim. The document also provides the names and addresses of their respective law firms in Denver and New York.

This document is a page from a legal filing (Document 386 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021) arguing against the reliability of certain expert testimony. It cites the precedent of *United States v. Raymond*, where the court excluded expert Ken Lanning's testimony on grooming because it lacked objective benchmarks and was deemed unreliable. The filing suggests the current court should follow this precedent and also notes that another individual, Rocchio, while a treatment provider for victims, lacks experience in evaluating perpetrators.

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'.

This document is a legal filing, specifically page 15 of Document 386 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The author argues that the expert testimony of an individual named Rocchio regarding 'grooming' should be deemed inadmissible because it is not based on scientific studies, is too general, and will not help the jury understand the specific facts of the case. The argument relies on legal precedents from cases like Daubert, Raymond, and Gonyer to assert that Rocchio's opinions do not meet the standard for expert testimony.

This document is page 4 of a legal filing from October 29, 2021, specifically a table of authorities. It lists legal cases (United States v. Serna, Wehling v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp.), a scholarly article on child sexual abuse, and several Federal Rules of Evidence. The page indicates the legal precedents and rules that are cited within the larger document.

This legal document, part of a court filing from October 29, 2021, argues against the admissibility of expert opinions from a treatment provider named Rocchio. The filing contends that Rocchio's opinions on grooming are based solely on personal experience, lack a reliable methodology, and are not supported by scientific literature. It cites various legal precedents and an academic article to assert that her testimony fails to meet the standards for expert witnesses.

This document is page 10 of a legal filing (Document 386) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 29, 2021. It is a defense argument seeking to exclude the testimony of an expert witness named Rocchio regarding 'grooming' patterns in sexual abuse cases. The text cites Federal Rules of Evidence 704, 403, and 404 to argue that such opinions are unreliable, prejudicial, and not based on scientific data.