DOJ-OGR-00006047.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 406 Filed 11/02/21 Page5of6 Page 5 Fifth, should the Court limit or exclude Dr. Roccio’s opinions, rebuttal opinions will most likely be unnecessary. Sixth, the testimony of two of the identified experts, Gerald LaPorte and Jennifer Naso, is anticipatory. These forensic document examiners have not yet seen the document that may or may not be produced at trial. They were endorsed out of a spirit of non- gamesmanship and in an abundance of caution. Similarly, Robert Kelso will primarily be testifying regarding exhibits that the government recently disclosed and, while likely not even an expert opinion, he too was disclosed in an abundance of caution. Seventh, the government’s proposed schedule is unworkable and will impact selection of the jury and the examination of witnesses. One reason to have Dr. Rocchio’s opinions litigated before jury selection is that the court may want to inquire of the prospective jurors about “grooming” and, absent a decision, won’t know if that term is going to be used at trial. If Dr. Rocchio’s grooming opinions are disallowed, the issues regarding Rule 412 will likely be narrowed. Eighth, the defense needs to know in advance of trial, including opening statements, who is or is not testifying. It would be prejudicial to delay any challenge from the government, which may or may not come, until after November 23, to be resolved per the government, after opening statements. This is the epitome of gamesmanship because Ms. Maxwell will then not be allowed to discuss the testimony in opening. And, finally, the problem here was created by the government. Had the government disclosed the 3500 materials sooner, an earlier expert disclosure date would have been scheduled, resolving the government’s alleged compressed timing problem. It is the government that has driven this schedule, not Ms. Maxwell.? DOJ-OGR-00006047