DOJ-OGR-00006232.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 21 of 41 Compounding the improper nature of this testimony, the defense appears to seek to use Dr. Dietz to opine as to a complex factual narrative that no reliable process of psychiatric evaluation could produce. Dr. Dietz is not remotely competent to opine that Epstein would “surround himself with people who would serve his needs” (Ex. A at 6), or that he was able to “use his brilliance to manipulate people to do his bidding” or “compartmentalize people into isolated cells in which none had complete information about his activities” (id. at 7-8). Dr. Dietz has absolutely no basis to make such broad and sweeping factual claims about Epstein or his relationships with anyone, much less anyone in this case. It appears that Dr. Dietz has reached his conclusions based solely on one interview of Epstein with Steve Bannon in which Epstein “acknowledged that he gravitated to people of power” (Ex. A at 6) and some case documents exchanged in discovery (Def. Expert Notice Ex. C, attached as Exhibit B). This “evidence” does not even support the point—it suggests that Epstein looked to the halos of others, not that he generated one himself. And it is no basis, at all, for Dr. Dietz to suggest to the jury that anyone involved in this case did anything because of Epstein’s “halo.” This factual narration of Epstein’s life and apparently the lives of other people who interacted with him, a defense summation based on a nullification defense masquerading as an expert witness opinion, is not based on any competent evidence, and in any event is patently not the product of reliable psychiatric methods reliably applied to this case. See, e.g., Island Intell. > This would not be the first unreliable factual claim made by Dr. Dietz, who testified in a previous criminal case that a defendant got the idea of drowning her children in the bathtub from an episode of Law & Order in which a defendant did so and was acquitted on an insanity defense, when in fact no such episode existed. See generally e.g., Barnette v. United States, No. 12 Civ. 327, 2021 WL 949848, *9-10 (W.D.N.C. March 12, 2021). This led to the reversal of the trial conviction of the defendant in that case. See Yates v. State, 171 S.W.3d 215, 222 (Tex. App. 2005). 17 DOJ-OGR- 00006232