Artwork

Kandungan disediakan oleh Bobby Capucci. Semua kandungan podcast termasuk episod, grafik dan perihalan podcast dimuat naik dan disediakan terus oleh Bobby Capucci atau rakan kongsi platform podcast mereka. Jika anda percaya seseorang menggunakan karya berhak cipta anda tanpa kebenaran anda, anda boleh mengikuti proses yang digariskan di sini https://ms.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Aplikasi Podcast
Pergi ke luar talian dengan aplikasi Player FM !

Jes Staley And His Motion To Exclude JP Morgan's Expert Witness Opinions (Part 1) (8/27/24)

11:11
 
Kongsi
 

Manage episode 436436253 series 3380507
Kandungan disediakan oleh Bobby Capucci. Semua kandungan podcast termasuk episod, grafik dan perihalan podcast dimuat naik dan disediakan terus oleh Bobby Capucci atau rakan kongsi platform podcast mereka. Jika anda percaya seseorang menggunakan karya berhak cipta anda tanpa kebenaran anda, anda boleh mengikuti proses yang digariskan di sini https://ms.player.fm/legal.
Summary of Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR - Third-Party Defendant James Staley’s Brief in Support of His Motion to Exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank’s Proffered Expert OpinionsIn this case, James Staley, a third-party defendant, has filed a brief supporting his motion to exclude expert opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The core arguments of Staley’s brief are:
  1. Lack of Relevance and Reliability: Staley argues that the expert opinions submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank do not meet the legal standards of relevance and reliability required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. He contends that the opinions are speculative, not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not employ reliable principles and methods.
  2. Failure to Establish a Sufficient Basis for Opinions: Staley claims that the experts have not provided a proper factual foundation for their opinions. He argues that the expert reports lack direct connection to the specific facts of the case and fail to address how the opinions would help the court understand the evidence or determine facts in issue.
  3. Prejudice and Confusion: The brief also highlights concerns that allowing these expert opinions could cause unfair prejudice against Staley and confuse the jury. Staley argues that the expert opinions could lead the jury to rely on unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, which would be unfair and unjust.
  4. Request for Exclusion: Based on these arguments, Staley requests the court to exclude the expert testimonies and opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank in their entirety, asserting that their inclusion would violate legal standards and potentially harm the integrity of the judicial process.
Overall, Staley’s motion aims to prevent the introduction of what he considers to be flawed and unhelpful expert opinions that could negatively influence the outcome of the case.
(commercial at 7:39)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
  continue reading

1035 episod

Artwork
iconKongsi
 
Manage episode 436436253 series 3380507
Kandungan disediakan oleh Bobby Capucci. Semua kandungan podcast termasuk episod, grafik dan perihalan podcast dimuat naik dan disediakan terus oleh Bobby Capucci atau rakan kongsi platform podcast mereka. Jika anda percaya seseorang menggunakan karya berhak cipta anda tanpa kebenaran anda, anda boleh mengikuti proses yang digariskan di sini https://ms.player.fm/legal.
Summary of Case Number: 1:22-cv-10904-JSR - Third-Party Defendant James Staley’s Brief in Support of His Motion to Exclude JPMorgan Chase Bank’s Proffered Expert OpinionsIn this case, James Staley, a third-party defendant, has filed a brief supporting his motion to exclude expert opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The core arguments of Staley’s brief are:
  1. Lack of Relevance and Reliability: Staley argues that the expert opinions submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank do not meet the legal standards of relevance and reliability required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard. He contends that the opinions are speculative, not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not employ reliable principles and methods.
  2. Failure to Establish a Sufficient Basis for Opinions: Staley claims that the experts have not provided a proper factual foundation for their opinions. He argues that the expert reports lack direct connection to the specific facts of the case and fail to address how the opinions would help the court understand the evidence or determine facts in issue.
  3. Prejudice and Confusion: The brief also highlights concerns that allowing these expert opinions could cause unfair prejudice against Staley and confuse the jury. Staley argues that the expert opinions could lead the jury to rely on unsubstantiated and misleading conclusions, which would be unfair and unjust.
  4. Request for Exclusion: Based on these arguments, Staley requests the court to exclude the expert testimonies and opinions presented by JPMorgan Chase Bank in their entirety, asserting that their inclusion would violate legal standards and potentially harm the integrity of the judicial process.
Overall, Staley’s motion aims to prevent the introduction of what he considers to be flawed and unhelpful expert opinions that could negatively influence the outcome of the case.
(commercial at 7:39)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.342.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
  continue reading

1035 episod

Alle episoder

×
 
Loading …

Selamat datang ke Player FM

Player FM mengimbas laman-laman web bagi podcast berkualiti tinggi untuk anda nikmati sekarang. Ia merupakan aplikasi podcast terbaik dan berfungsi untuk Android, iPhone, dan web. Daftar untuk melaraskan langganan merentasi peranti.

 

Panduan Rujukan Pantas

Podcast Teratas