{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "424",
    "date": "11/08/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 11 of 41\n\nA threshold issue is, of course, whether the witness “is qualified to be an ‘expert’” in the subject matter at issue. See Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396 n.11 (2d Cir. 2005). Testimony from a qualified expert is admissible only if the trial court determines that it is both relevant and reliable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589-90; see Kumho Tire Co., Inc. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Specifically, in Daubert, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence “assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” 509 U.S. at 597. “Daubert applies to both defense and government experts.” United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 148 (2d Cir. 2003).\n\nApplying Rule 702, the Court must determine whether the expert’s reasoning and methodology underlying his testimony is valid, and whether that reasoning or methodology was applied reliably to the facts, so as to be relevant and helpful to the jury. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. 137. The reliability inquiry is flexible and “must be tied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. at 150 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Second Circuit has emphasized that “it is critical that an expert’s analysis be reliable at every step.” Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Pass. Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 2002). “In deciding whether a step in an expert’s analysis is unreliable, the district court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the case at hand.” Id. Minor flaws with an otherwise reliable expert opinion will not bar admission of that evidence; however, the Court should exclude the expert evidence “if the flaw is large enough that the expert lacks ‘good grounds’ for his or her conclusions.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).\n\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00006222",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 11 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A threshold issue is, of course, whether the witness “is qualified to be an ‘expert’” in the subject matter at issue. See Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 396 n.11 (2d Cir. 2005). Testimony from a qualified expert is admissible only if the trial court determines that it is both relevant and reliable. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589-90; see Kumho Tire Co., Inc. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Specifically, in Daubert, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence “assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.” 509 U.S. at 597. “Daubert applies to both defense and government experts.” United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 148 (2d Cir. 2003).\n\nApplying Rule 702, the Court must determine whether the expert’s reasoning and methodology underlying his testimony is valid, and whether that reasoning or methodology was applied reliably to the facts, so as to be relevant and helpful to the jury. See Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. 137. The reliability inquiry is flexible and “must be tied to the facts of a particular case.” Id. at 150 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Second Circuit has emphasized that “it is critical that an expert’s analysis be reliable at every step.” Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Pass. Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 2002). “In deciding whether a step in an expert’s analysis is unreliable, the district court should undertake a rigorous examination of the facts on which the expert relies, the method by which the expert draws an opinion from those facts, and how the expert applies the facts and methods to the case at hand.” Id. Minor flaws with an otherwise reliable expert opinion will not bar admission of that evidence; however, the Court should exclude the expert evidence “if the flaw is large enough that the expert lacks ‘good grounds’ for his or her conclusions.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006222",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "City of New York",
      "Supreme Court",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Nat’l R.R. Pass. Corp."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21",
      "1999",
      "2005",
      "2003",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "414 F.3d 381",
      "509 U.S. 589-90",
      "526 U.S. 137",
      "327 F.3d 56",
      "303 F.3d 256",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006222"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 702. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}