DOJ-OGR-00008178.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document516 Filed 11/21/21 Page6of17 But the Court would preclude Dr. Dietz’s testimony on hindsight bias to the extent that it instructs the jury to be cognizant of hindsight bias in their own decision making. First, “Thjindsight bias is a common-sense concept—everyone knows that ‘hindsight is 20/20.’” Adams v. Lab’y Corp. of Am., 760 F.3d 1322, 1335 (11th Cir. 2014). Because the expert’s “opinion is one that the jury could reach with their own ‘common knowledge and common sense,’ no expert testimony is warranted.” Edmondson v. RCI Hosp. Holdings, Inc., No. 16-CV- 2242 (VEC), 2020 WL 1503452, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) (quoting 4 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 702.03 (2019)). Indeed, neither the Government nor the Court could identify a federal court that has admitted expert testimony on the jury’s hindsight bias. Gov’t Br. at 14. The Defense cites no such case law in its response. Second, even if the jury’s hindsight bias were a relevant topic of expert testimony, the Court would exclude it because of Rule 403 prejudice. The Court will instruct the jury on how to assess evidence and determine Ms. Maxwell’s intent. An expert instruction on hindsight bias risks confusing the jury and usurping the Court’s role in instructing the jury as to the law. Nimely, 414 F.3d at 397. Next, Dr. Dietz offers an opinion on the so-called halo effect. Specifically, the Defense expects that Dr. Dietz would testify that an individual’s positive traits—like attractiveness, charisma, intelligence, and status—can cause other people to overlook the individual’s negative traits. Notice at 5—6. Dr. Dietz would testify that Jeffrey Epstein “exploited the Halo effect to surround himself with people who would serve his needs” while “compartmentaliz[ing]” what they knew about his activities. Jd. at 6-7. The Defense argues that the opinion is relevant to Ms. Maxwell’s knowledge of Epstein’s conspiracy. Def. Br. at 9-10. The Government argues that such testimony is irrelevant to any defense and that it improperly suggests sympathy and nullification. Gov’t Br. at 15—16. It further argues that Dr. Dietz’s opinion on Epstein DOJ-OGR-00008178