DOJ-OGR-00011135.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document691 Filed 11/22/21 Page4of7 witnesses’ testimony, not their qualifications or the reliability of their methods under Rule 702. Def. Br. at 1, 5-6. But one aspect of the Rule 702 and Daubert inquiry is “fit,” which asks “whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.” Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV- 09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591). Fit is satisfied if the expert’s opinion would assist the jury’s decision on a relevant question of fact without “usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it.” /d. (quoting United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). The Court finds that at least some of the Government’s arguments that go to fit are ripe for preliminary resolution now. Other aspects of the Government’s motion can be resolved only with additional information and the context of trial. The Government moves to exclude the testimony of Bennett Gershman in its entirety. As explained in the notice, Professor Gershman “is a leading authority on prosecutorial misconduct.” Notice at 12. The Defense expects that he will testify “on best practices to ensure the integrity of any prosecution, focusing on investigation, witness preparation, media contact, neutrality, obligations to provide accurate information, and relationship with crime victims, their counsel, and case-related civil litigation.” Jd. The Court will grant the Government’s motion and exclude Gershman. First, his expected testimony is irrelevant. At the November | pretrial conference, the Court ruled that it would “preclude affirmative evidence by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the investigation.” Nov. 1 Tr. at 17. As the Court explained, “[t]he length of the investigation, the investigative techniques used, and the fact that the defendant was not initially a target of the DOJ-OGR-00011135