” United States v. Cantoni, No. 18-CR-562 (ENV), 2019 WL 1441128, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2019) (collecting cases)
Nor is that probative effect outweighed by prejudice, given that the Direct Action Plaintiffs may cross-examine Mr. Harvey and rebut his presentation with their own expert witnesses.See United States v. Cantoni, No. 18-CR-562, 2019 WL 1441128, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2019) (stating that "the probative value of the location analysis is sufficient to overcome any risk of unfair prejudice, particularly given defense counsel's opportunity to cross-examine the government's expert on the claimed weaknesses in his analysis"). Finally, because Mr. Harvey performs data analysis comparing Professor Hausman's, Mr. Hutchins', and Drs. Harris's and Epstein's damages benchmarks, he is more than simply a
Despite the imprecise nature of cell tower evidence, the evidence is still deemed relevant by courts. See United States v. Cantoni, No. 18-cr-562, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56057, *7 (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (given the government's admission that the cell tower evidence does not provide exact locations, the cell phone location data is "relevant to show whether the robbery scene was within the arc that might be created from the directional radio information," and "the substantial probative value and limited risk of unfair prejudice"). The Third Circuit has observed that "[c]ell-tower data is now commonly accepted in federal courts as evidence of a defendant's location."
In one recent case, the court granted the government's request to exclude the testimony of Minor on the grounds that his opinion would cause jury confusion and that “a vigorous cross- examination can expose whatever shortcomings there may be in the analysis of the government expert without the mini-trial on cell phone data that Minor's testimony would bring.” United States v. Cantoni, 2019 WL 1441128, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2019), aff'd, 2021 WL 5829754 (2d Cir. Dec. 9, 2021).