DOJ-OGR-00005750.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 393 Filed 10/29/21 Page4of10 Ghislaine Maxwell moves under Federal Rules of Evidence 701, 702, and 704, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, to preclude any expert opinion testimony from law enforcement witnesses. INTRODUCTION Beginning in the 1980s, “a new type of ‘skilled witness’ began emerging: the law enforcement officer.” United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit has recognized that this phenomenon has led to significant problems. /d. at 188-93. “TW |hen those officer experts come to court and simply disgorge their factual knowledge to the jury, the experts are no longer aiding the jury in its factfinding; they are instructing the jury on the existence of the facts needed to satisfy the elements of the charged offense.” /d. at 191. But “[t]he Government cannot satisfy its burden of proof by taking the easy route of calling an ‘expert’ whose expertise happens to be the defendant.” /d.; see U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Nor can the government circumvent the disclosure and discovery requirements of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and bypass this Court’s gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 by offering what is, in fact, expert opinion from law enforcement officers who are purportedly only testifying as lay witnesses. Ms. Maxwell files this motion to limit the government’s expert witnesses to those who were properly disclosed and endorsed as experts, and to prevent the government from lessening its burden of proof by relying on the supposed expert opinions of undisclosed and unqualified law enforcement officers. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The government has endorsed and disclosed only two witnesses who may offer expert opinion testimony under Rule of Evidence 702—Dr. Lisa Rocchio and Steven Flately. DOJ-OGR-00005750