DOJ-OGR-00006218.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page7of41 e Awareness of the impact of hindsight bias “should temper any claims that so called ‘grooming’ behaviors should have been noticed and either reported or avoided and that failing to do so constitutes knowledge or intent.” (/d.). As set forth below, the Government objects that these opinions are within the ken of the jury and invade the province of the jury and the Court. Dr. Dietz also offers the following opinions as to the “Halo effect”: e The “Halo effect” is “a cognitive bias in impression formation whereby the positive evaluation of one characteristic has a radiating effect on how other, non-related characteristics of the individual are evaluated.” (/d.). e “Like many people who achieve great power and wealth, Jeff[re]y Epstein exploited the Halo effect to surround himself with people who would serve his needs.” (/d. at 6). e Epstein’s personality flaws “allowed him to use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding and to compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete information about his activities.” (/d. at 7). As set forth below, the Government objects that these opinions are an irrelevant invitation to jury nullification and an improper vehicle for introducing a factual narrative. Dr. Dietz offers a lengthy series of objectionable opinions as to “Multiple Pathways to False Sex Assault Allegations.” (/d. at 7). In relevant part, Dr. Dietz opines: e “False allegations of sexual assault do occur, and there are multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault.” (/d. at 7). > The disclosure also notes that “Dr. Dietz is also prepared to address Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual behavior should it prove relevant” (id. at 7), but as he has not disclosed what opinions he may have about Epstein’s sexual behavior, he has not provided adequate notice as to them and the Government does not address them further herein except to note that it will object if he attempts to offer them. See, e.g., United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) (“Merely identifying the general topics about which the expert will testify is insufficient; rather, the summary must reveal the expert’s actual opinions.”). S DOJ-OGR-00006218