DOJ-OGR-00006901.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 21 of 52 C. Ms. Maxwell reiterates her request to defer briefing and ruling on the admissibility 0f tt ES and exhibits for two weeks. For the reasons already detailed, the complexity of the issues and the fact that Jy BEE «ecently disclosed testimony appears to be of utmost centrality to the government's case, Ms. Maxwell repeats and reiterates her request that she be afforded additional time to submit a comprehensive motion in /imine concerning the introduction of this testimony and exhibits as supposed direct evidence of the charged conspiracy. In that there remains a full month before opening statements, Ms. Maxwell's fundamental rights to present a defense, to have the effective assistance of counsel, and to a right to confront witnesses and subpoena witnesses to testify in her defense all will be preserved by a small delay on this issue. I. THIS COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE LISA ROCCHIO'S TESTIMONY UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 702 AND DAUBERT V. MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) AND GRANT A DAUBERT HEARING A. This Court should reject the government’s arguments to the extent that they are based on newly disclosed material, which this Court ordered the government to produce six months ago. Recognizing that Rocchio’s proposed testimony is on shaky ground (to say the least), the government belatedly tries to shore up its case and hoist up its expert witness. Two days ago, and six months after the court-imposed deadline for expert disclosures, the government first disclosed to defense counsel about 300 pages of material on which Rocchio apparently relied in reaching her conclusions. This Court should reject the government’s untimely effort to save Rocchio’s testimony from exclusion. See United States v. Lewis, 818 F. App’x 74, 79 (2d Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (affirming exclusion of defendant’s proffered expert evidence “that did not adhere to the discovery schedule”). 15 DOJ-OGR- 00006901