DOJ-OGR-00005633.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 386 Filed 10/29/21 Page9of24 v. City of N_Y., 414 F.3d. 381, 396 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)). “To decide ‘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.’” Electra v. 59 Murray Enterprises, Inc., 987 F.3d 233, 254 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 267). If an expert’s opinions rest “on data, a methodology, or studies that are simply inadequate to support the conclusions reached, Daubert and Rule 702 mandate the exclusion of that unreliable opinion testimony.” Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266. The Supreme Court in Daubert set forth several factors for the court to consider in determining reliability: “(1) whether a theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) a technique’s known or potential rate of error, and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and (4) whether a particular technique or theory has gained ‘general acceptance’ in the relevant scientific community” Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266 (cleaned up). “Rule [702] applies its reliability standard to all ‘scientific,’ ‘technical,’ or ‘other specialized’ matters within its scope.” Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 147-48. Assuming an expert’s opinions clear the relevancy and reliability hurdles of Daubert and Rule 702, the court must nevertheless exclude the evidence if it violates Rule 704, Rule 403, or Rule 404. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. Rule 704 provides that “[iJn a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an DOJ-OGR-00005633