DOJ-OGR-00008180.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document516 Filed 11/21/21 Page8of17 records. 315 F.R.D. at 445. The Court would exclude Dr. Dietz’s diagnosis for much the same reasons that court identified. First, the Defense has offered no evidence that diagnosis without any in-person interview is a reliable and accepted method in Dr. Dietz’s field. /d. at 446. Second, even if reliable, the opinion risks significant Rule 403 prejudice because the jury is likely to overweigh Dr. Dietz’s diagnosis. /d. at 447. Expert testimony may not act as a vehicle coe to “offer[ ] a narrative history” of the case to the jury or to simply “‘regurgitate’ the evidence” already available in the record. In re Fosamax Prod. Liab. Litig., 645 F. Supp. 2d 164, 192 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Instead, jurors may consider the applicability of the halo effect based on evidence in the record, including the anticipated testimony of multiple individuals that interacted directly with Epstein. Next, Dr. Dietz expects to testify that because victims of sexual assault often develop post-traumatic stress disorder, they avoid situations and feelings that are likely to bring on symptoms of PTSD, including contact with their abusers or wearing clothes gifted by their abusers. Notice at 11. The Defense explains that this testimony is relevant because it would mean that evidence of alleged victims interacting with Ms. Maxwell or Epstein after they have allegedly been abused is probative of whether their allegations of abuse are credible. Def. Br. at 15-16. The Government argues that this opinion blames victims for their abuse, that it does not fit the facts of this case because the abuse was not accomplished by physical force, and that Dr. Dietz does not have a reliable basis for the opinion. Gov’t Br. at 23-25. The Court will admit this opinion. Dr. Dietz’s notice includes several citations to studies that link victims of sexual abuse to PTSD, which the Court finds to be a reliable basis for the opinion. Notice at 11. The Government may of course cross-examine Dr. Dietz about contrary research. The Government’s other two objections—that the opinion is victim blaming and that it DOJ-OGR-00008180