DOJ-OGR-00011317.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page7of8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 6, 2021 Page 7 This Court should preclude the government from eliciting Examiner Flatley’s expert opinion. As this Court explained to the government at the pretrial conference when Ms. Maxwell first raised this issue with the Court: Well, I mean, [the government’s] notice should provide the opinions that [Examiner Flatley’s] going to offer... . It’s not a scavenger hunt. You’re required, as the first matter, to provide, pursuant to Rule 16, the opinions that he’s going to offer. If your notice is insufficient under Rule 16 to tell us now what opinions your expert is going to provide, then you may have problems down the road. But I’m not going to have [Ms. Maxwell] held to a different standard than what the government has done here. TR 11/23/2021, p 25-26. It is clear that Examiner Flatley is no longer merely providing a factual narrative of what he did in this case. Based on his specialized training and experience, he’s defining and explaining the significance of technical terms and concepts for the jury, and he is using reasoning unfamiliar to lay individuals to describe his analyses for, and to impart his conclusions to, the jury. Ms. Maxwell has been preparing for the testimony of other witnesses and briefing other issues, and she has not had sufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of Examiner Flatley. The government’s disclosure comes far too late, it’s prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and the testimony should be excluded. DOJ-OGR-00011317