DOJ-OGR-00005816.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 33 of 84 Instead, the Government will seek to offer Dr. Rocchio’s testimony as background in this case. “Daubert instructs that vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence are the central tools available to an adversary who wishes to debunk an expert’s testimony.” Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE), Dkt. No. 335 at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-595). Thus, to the extent the defendant wishes to cast doubt on the applicability of Dr. Rocchio’s background testimony, she is free to do so through cross-examination or by offering contrary evidence. As discussed above, Dr. Rocchio’s testimony is relevant to helping the jury understand key issues in the case, like why the Minor Victims may have returned to the defendant and Epstein without being physically forced to do so, and why they delayed disclosure. te OK ok The parties agree that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert. Her opinions are well within the range of reasonable expert opinions, and so are sufficiently reliable to go to the jury. And they will aid the jury in evaluating other testimony in this case. That is enough for the Court to admit Dr. Rocchio’s testimony. II. The Evidence Contained in the Government’s October 11, 2021 Letter is Admissible On October 11, 2021, the Government notified the defense of certain evidence it may offer at trial. In particular, the letter addressed and the expected testimony of one potential witness. (See October 11, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A). As the Government explained in its letter to the defense, the evidence constitutes direct evidence of the charged offenses, but the Government provided notice under Rule 404(b) in the alternative. That same day, the Government provided the defense wih iim. along with copies of all other marked Government 32 DOJ-OGR-00005816