mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006691.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8 of 10",
    "document_number": "448",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 448 Filed 11/12/21 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 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-00006691",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 448 Filed 11/12/21 Page 8 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: October 18, 2021",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006691",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 18, 2021",
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 448",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006691"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and clear. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}