Latest / Beyond The Horizon / The USVI And Their Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witnesses (Part 1) (11/2/26)

Transcript

The USVI And Their Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witnesses (Part 1) (11/2/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to get back to the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: court documents, and this time we're taking a look at
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: the government of the United States Virgin Islands Memorandum of
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Law in support of motion to exclude expert opinions of Kimberly, Melman, Orozco,
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: Joseph Fonseca, and Carolyn Irwin. Introduction. Plaintiff, the government of
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: the United States... Virgin Islands alleges that defendant JPMorgan Chase
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Bank facilitated and benefited from the criminal sex trafficking of
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Section 18, U.S. Code Section 1581 through 97 TVPA. The
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: TVPA provides the state attorney general a right of civil
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: action as parents' patriarchy to protect the interests of state
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: residents that have been threatened or adversely affected by any
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: person who violates U.S. Code 18, Section 1591. The government
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: alleges that J.P. Morgan knowingly participated and benefited from Epstein's
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: sex trafficking venture by holding his accounts, processing payments to
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: victims and recruiters, and redacted in violation of U.S. Code 18,
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: Section 1591a and 2. The government also alleges that J.P.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: Morgan's redacted constitutes unlawful obstruction of TVPA enforcement in violation
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: of U.S. Code 18, Section 1591-D-2-A-C. The government seeks an injunction,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: damages equitable relief, and attorney fees and costs as appropriate
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: relief under Section 1595-D. In response to the government's claims, J.P.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: Morgan disclosed proposed opinion testimony from four expert witnesses. Three
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: of them, however, offer opinions that are well outside their
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: expertise or otherwise objectionable. and should be excluded. J.P. Morgan
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: proposes to offer the opinions of Kimberly Melman Orozco, whose
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: academic training is in criminology with a focus on immigration,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: on whether Epstein's victims were subject to trafficking, whether redacted,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: and whether the government and or certain plaintiffs' lawyers are
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: engaged in secondary exploitation of Epstein's victim. Dr. Melman Orozco
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: lacks the credentials to offer these opinions and has little
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: education or expertise in human trafficking. relying largely upon her
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: experience gained as an expert in previous cases. Compounding the problems,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: she offers opinions regarding financial regulations and standards, an area
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: in which she possesses no expertise whatsoever, and also offers
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: bizarre opinions regarding human trafficking that contradict the plain language
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: of the TVPA. The court should exclude Dr. Melman or
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: Roscoe's opinions in their entirety or, in the alternative, strictly
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: limit her testimony to specific areas that are scientifically valid
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: and in which the court determines she possesses the requisite expertise. J.P.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: Morgan also disclosed the opinions of Joseph Fonseca, a retired
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: federal law enforcement agent, on whether redacted. Although Mr. Fonseca
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: has experience in law enforcement, he lacks the requisite experience
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: to opine regarding redacted in this case. He never used
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: SARS in his work and did not know what they
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: were until J.P. Morgan retained him for the case. He
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: also disclaimed knowledge regarding the practices of other investigators, further
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: demonstrating the lack of factual basis for his opinions. Finally, J.P.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: Morgan plans to rely upon the opinions of Carlin Irwin,
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: a forensic economist who works primarily as an expert witness
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: concerning tax benefits Epstein received from the Virgin Islands Economic
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: Development Commission. As established in prior briefing, these benefits are
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: irrelevant to the issues in this case because J.P. Morgan's
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: fault-shifting affirmative defense are not cognizable at law. Moreover, Ms.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: Irwin offers testimony well outside her expertise as an economist,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: criticizing or opining on the efforts of the EDC in
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: granting and monitoring the tax benefits, even though she has
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: no relevant experience either with these types of tax benefits
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: in general or with the activities of government agencies. She also, impermissibly,
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: offers rank speculation about the motives of public officials. As
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: detailed below, each of these experts' opinions should be excluded
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: in whole or significant part due to the lack of qualification,
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: insufficiency of supporting facts or data, unreliable scientific methodology, and
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: or irrelevance to the case. The Legal Standard A witness
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: or education is may testify in the form of an
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: opinion or otherwise if, A, the expert's scientific, technical, or
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: otherwise specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: understand the evidence or to determine a fact and issue,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: and B, the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data.
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: FedR Evidence 702 A and B. To determine whether a
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: witness qualifies as an expert, courts compare the area in
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: which the witness has superior knowledge, education, experience, or skill
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: with the subject matter of the proffer testimony. United States v.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: Yin-Yat-Chin 373 F. 3d The court then must ensure that the
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: expert will actually be testifying on issues or subject matter
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: within his or her area of expertise. In assessing the
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: sufficiency of the facts or data supporting an expert's opinion,
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: the court must ensure that there is not too great
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered,
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: although some gaps or inconsistencies in the reasoning leading to
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: the opinion go to the weight of the evidence, not
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: to its admissibility. In Daubert v. Merrill, Dow Pharmaceutical Inc.,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: 509 U.S. 579, 1993, the Supreme Court held that Federal
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Rule of Evidence 702's requirement that an expert testimony pertain
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: to scientific knowledge establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. Daubert
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: sets forth certain criteria that a district court may consider
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. including 1.
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: Whether the expert's theory or technique can be and has
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: been tested, 2. Whether the theory or technique has been
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: subjected to peer review and publication, 3. The known or
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: potential rate of error in the theory's application and the
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, and 4.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: The general acceptance of the theory or technique in the
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: relevant scientific community. Daubert also makes clear that its list
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive. In
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: assessing the reliability of a non-scientific expert's methodology, the court
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: may consider one or more of the specific factors that
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: Daubert mentioned when doing so will help determine that testimony's reliability.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: But as the court stated in Daubert, the test of
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: reliability is flexible. and Daubert's list of specific factors neither
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: Expert testimony must also be relevant under Rule 401 and
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: must not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403. The Argument 1. Dr.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: Mihan Orozco's testimony should be stricken in whole or significant part. Dr.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco holds herself out as an expert on human trafficking,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: but breathtakingly offers the opinion, plainly contrary to the TVPA,
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: that rather than being trafficked, some minors choose to engage
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: in commercial sex for money and are not actually trafficked.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: The declaration of David Ackerman in support of the government
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: of the United States Virgin Islands motion to exclude expert
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: opinion of Kimberly Melman Orozco, Joseph Fonseca, and Carlin Irwin
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: filed herein thereafter Declaration Example 1 at 67. J.P. Morgan
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: has hired her to offer over 20 opinions in this
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: case on wide-ranging topics, some of which stray far from
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: human trafficking. Given her unsupportable opinion, it is unsurprising that
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: she lacks any meaningful academic credentials relating to human trafficking
• 8:15
  Speaker 1: and has minimal experience in the field outside her work
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: as a full-time expert witness. Nonetheless, she stretches what little
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: expertise she claims to have to opine on unrelated topics
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: such as banking regulations and standards, which even Dr. Melman
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: Orozco admits are not her area of expertise. Dr. Melman
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Orozco also puts forth, without any support, an incredibly narrow
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: knowledge standard for the TVPA that is also inconsistent with
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: the law and improper for expert testimony, under which almost
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: no financial institution could be found liable. Dr. Melman Orozco
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: further offers irrelevant opinions regarding secondary exploitations, a concept she
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: invents without any empirical support and misidentification of human trafficking
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: victims seemingly to impermissibly impugn the government's witnesses and motives
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: for bringing this law enforcement action. For these reasons, Dr.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco's testimony should be excluded in its entirety. In
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: the alternative, Dr. Melman Orozco's testimony should be limited solely
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: to the areas for which she claims to have expertise,
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: human trafficking, and her other opinions regarding legal standards, which
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: are not only improper but erroneous, should be stricken because
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: they are unhelpful and would serve only to mislead and
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: confuse the jury and thereby unfairly prejudice the government. A. Dr.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco's testimony should be excluded in its entirety because
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: she is not qualified to serve as an expert on
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: human trafficking. To the admissible under Rule 702, Expert testimony
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: must come from someone who is qualified as an expert
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. Dr. Mel Menorosco
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: has none of these characteristics. She is not an academic
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: or practitioner in the field of human trafficking. Her degrees
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: are in criminology, but she relies on her limited graduate
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: coursework in human trafficking as basis for her expertise. Although
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: she represents otherwise, Dr. Mel Menorosco's primary area of academic
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: study was not human trafficking. Dr. Mel Minerosco wrote the
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: dissertation for her 2012 PhD in Criminology on Immigration and
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: Erroneous Criminalization, not Human Trafficking. She relies on having taken
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: several graduate-level courses relating to human trafficking, an insufficient basis
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: for an expert's opinion, but even that is untrue. Dr.
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: Mel Minerosco could only identify two classes at her deposition,
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: Human Smuggling and Human Trafficking, and foreign nationals in crime,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: the latter of which was not specific to human trafficking.
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: In addition, her teaching experience is limited to part-time instructor
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: or adjunct positions where she largely taught classes wholly unrelated
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: or not specific to human trafficking. Nearly all of Dr.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco's research experience is either not specific to human
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: trafficking or stems from her role as an expert witness.
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: but it would be absurd to conclude that one can
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: become an expert simply by accumulating experience in testifying. Dr.
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco is a professional expert who started offering expert
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: testimony straight out of school. She testified that she has
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: been disclosed as an expert in 48 cases from 2016
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: to 2023. In 2012, the same year she graduated with
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: her PhD in criminology, Dr. Melman Orozco founded the Justia Institute,
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: a now-defunct organization, Among other services, the Justia Institute offered
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: expert testimony at criminal court cases involving immigrants or victims
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: of human trafficking. One of the Justia Institute's projects involved
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: writing to 17 convicted terrorists serving time in federal prison
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: to better understand their crime through their eyes. Seemingly research
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: for Dr. Melman Zarrosco's book, The Jihadi Next Door, How
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: ISIS is Forcing, Defrauding, and Coercing Your Neighbor into Terrorism.
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: Another project analyzed the effects of in-state tuition for non-citizens
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: in Maryland. Dr. Melman Orozco has established multiple entities for
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: the purpose of providing expert witness and consulting services. In 2016,
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: she formed Mann, Melman, and Associates to offer expert witness
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: services and training and technical assistance for businesses. In 2018, Dr.
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco established Break the Chain to provide expert witness
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: services and training and technical assistance for businesses. In 2019,
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: she established Freedom Light, a nonprofit that provides training and
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: technical assistance specifically for businesses, and through which she is
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: writing a book tentatively titled Innocent Villains and Guilty Heroes,
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: The Truth Behind America's Failing War on Sex Trafficking, and
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: how sometimes there are companies and organizations that can be scapegoated. Dr.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco has minimal formal training or education relating to
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: human trafficking, and nearly all of her experience stems from
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: paid engagements as an expert witness. Expert witnesses are granted
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: testimonial latitude unavailable to other witnesses on the assumption that
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: the expert's opinion will have a reliable basis in the
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: knowledge and experience of his discipline. Dr. Melman Orozco's eight
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: years of experience testifying as an expert witness, cannot itself
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: form a reliable basis for testimony. Thus, the court should
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: exclude Dr. Melman Orozco's testimony in its entirety. All right,
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: we're going to wrap up this episode here, and in
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: the next episode, we're going to pick up with B. Dr.
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: Melman Orozco lacks expertise regarding financial regulations and standards. All
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: of the information that goes with this episode can be
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: found in the description box.