Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-1427House OversightLegal Filing

The government's memorandum argues against the defendant's motions in limine, addressing the admissi...

The government's memorandum argues against the defendant's motions in limine, addressing the admissibility of expert testimony by Dr. Lisa Rocchio, evidence related to Minor Victim-3 and Minor Victim-4, and co-conspirator statements. The government asserts that the evidence and testimony in question are relevant and admissible under various rules of evidence.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
d-1427
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The government's memorandum argues against the defendant's motions in limine, addressing the admissibility of expert testimony by Dr. Lisa Rocchio, evidence related to Minor Victim-3 and Minor Victim-4, and co-conspirator statements. The government asserts that the evidence and testimony in question are relevant and admissible under various rules of evidence.

Persons Referenced (1)

Tags

Admissibility of expert testimony by Dr. Lisa RocchioAdmissibility of evidence related to Minor Victim-3 and Minor Victim-4Co-conspirator statements and their admissibility under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)
0Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00028499

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S 120 Cr. 330 (AJN) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. x THE GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS AUDREY STRAUSS United States Attorney Southern District of New York Attorney for the United States of America Assistant United States Attorneys - Of Counsel - EFTA00039421 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 BACKGROUND 2 ARGUMENT 3 I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case 3 A. The NPA Does Not Bind the Southern District of New York 4 1. The Text of the Agreement Does Not Contain a Promise to Bind Other Districts 5 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the NPA Binds Other Districts 9 B. The NPA Does Not Immunize Maxwell from Prosecution 15 1. The NPA Is Limited to Particular Crimes Between 2001 and 2007 15 2. The NPA Does Not Confer Enforceable Rights on Maxwell 17 C. The Defendant

239p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00011452

0p
Dept. of JusticeFeb 27, 2025

u.s. v. jeffrey epstein indictment

UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICR OF NEW YORK ONTTED STATES OF AMERICA © | INDICTWEw® | -v. - : 19 Cr. amrEREY EPSTEIN, : 19CRIM 490 Defendant. : eee cone oe OE... SO The Grand Jury charges: overview 1. As set forth herein, over the course of many years, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, the defendant, sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls at his homes in Manhattan, New York, and Palm Beach, Florida, among other locations. 2. In particular, from at least in or about 2002, up to and i

14p
DOJ Data Set 8CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA00020401

0p
Dept. of JusticeDec 19, 2025

GRAND JURY [EFTA00008998]

GRAND JURY EXHIBIT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. S1 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Entice Minors to Travel to Engage in Illegal Sex Acts) The Grand Jury charges: OVERVIEW The char...

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.