DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg
650 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
650 KB
Summary
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between THE COURT and MS. POMERANTZ regarding the scope of expert testimony and cross-examination. The conversation centers on whether to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on certain opinions and the Court's qualification of another expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. The Court sets boundaries for cross-examination, emphasizing that it will not permit the introduction of undisclosed expert opinions.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert (implied) |
Subject of discussion regarding cross-examination on his opinions.
|
| THE COURT | Presiding Judge |
Speaking, asking questions, making rulings regarding expert testimony and cross-examination.
|
| MS. POMERANTZ | Attorney (implied) |
Speaking, responding to the Court, discussing the scope of expert cross-examination.
|
| their expert | Expert witness |
Referred to by MS. POMERANTZ as an expert whose qualifications might limit cross-examination.
|
| her | Expert witness |
Qualified by THE COURT to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
The entity responsible for transcribing the court proceedings.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
Discussion regarding the scope of expert testimony and cross-examination, specifically concerning Dr. Rocchio's opinions and the qualification of an expert on delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. The Court clarifies what constitutes fair cross-examination and prohibits the assertion of undisclosed expert opinions.
Court (implied)
Relationships (3)
The document records a direct exchange between the presiding judge (THE COURT) and an attorney (MS. POMERANTZ) during a court proceeding, discussing legal strategy and expert testimony.
The Court refers to 'Dr. Rocchio' in the context of cross-examination on 'those opinions,' indicating Dr. Rocchio is an expert witness or a subject of expert testimony in the case.
Ms. Pomerantz's side is discussing the ability to 'cross Dr. Rocchio on those opinions,' indicating Dr. Rocchio is an expert witness relevant to their case.
Key Quotes (3)
"I'm having trouble in the abstract understanding the objection. Frequently, cross of experts is essentially versions of, Well, haven't you heard the theories of my expert, who's going to come testify, to suggest that they're providing too narrow of a view or to introduce criticisms through the cross-examination. I suspect you'll cross-examine their witness in similar ways, won't you?"Source
— THE COURT
(The Court expressing difficulty understanding an objection and suggesting a reciprocal approach to expert cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg
Quote #1
"Your Honor, I think we would. But I think we wouldn't be going into areas in which their expert wasn't necessarily, you know, qualified as an expert."Source
— MS. POMERANTZ
(Ms. Pomerantz responding to the Court's question about cross-examination, indicating a willingness to cross-examine within the bounds of the expert's qualifications.)
DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg
Quote #2
"I've qualified her as an expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse. We've established that it's fair cross to ask if there are other bases for delayed disclosure. We'll see what she's aware of and what she's not and that will determine. I won't -- and, you know, I won't allow a long -- what I imagine might be problematic is you attempting to assert some other expert's opinion, undisclosed expert opinion, and then say, Are you familiar with that? So that you're effectively putting in"Source
— THE COURT
(The Court explaining its qualification of an expert and setting limits on cross-examination to prevent the introduction of undisclosed expert opinions.)
DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,695 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 228 752
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
1 is not an expert on those topics and has not been proffered --
2 has not been offered as an expert on those topics. That is
3 crossing the line. And it seems that this more proper; this
4 would be an area where they are trying to explain, I think, why
5 it's relevant to offer their own expert, as opposed to why they
6 should be able to cross Dr. Rocchio on those opinions.
7 THE COURT: I'm having trouble in the abstract
8 understanding the objection. Frequently, cross of experts is
9 essentially versions of, Well, haven't you heard the theories
10 of my expert, who's going to come testify, to suggest that
11 they're providing too narrow of a view or to introduce
12 criticisms through the cross-examination. I suspect you'll
13 cross-examine their witness in similar ways, won't you?
14 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I think we would. But I
15 think we wouldn't be going into areas in which their expert
16 wasn't necessarily, you know, qualified as an expert.
17 THE COURT: I've qualified her as an expert to provide
18 opinions on delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse.
19 We've established that it's fair cross to ask if there are
20 other bases for delayed disclosure. We'll see what she's aware
21 of and what she's not and that will determine. I won't -- and,
22 you know, I won't allow a long -- what I imagine might be
23 problematic is you attempting to assert some other expert's
24 opinion, undisclosed expert opinion, and then say, Are you
25 familiar with that? So that you're effectively putting in
2 has not been offered as an expert on those topics. That is
3 crossing the line. And it seems that this more proper; this
4 would be an area where they are trying to explain, I think, why
5 it's relevant to offer their own expert, as opposed to why they
6 should be able to cross Dr. Rocchio on those opinions.
7 THE COURT: I'm having trouble in the abstract
8 understanding the objection. Frequently, cross of experts is
9 essentially versions of, Well, haven't you heard the theories
10 of my expert, who's going to come testify, to suggest that
11 they're providing too narrow of a view or to introduce
12 criticisms through the cross-examination. I suspect you'll
13 cross-examine their witness in similar ways, won't you?
14 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I think we would. But I
15 think we wouldn't be going into areas in which their expert
16 wasn't necessarily, you know, qualified as an expert.
17 THE COURT: I've qualified her as an expert to provide
18 opinions on delayed disclosure in the context of sexual abuse.
19 We've established that it's fair cross to ask if there are
20 other bases for delayed disclosure. We'll see what she's aware
21 of and what she's not and that will determine. I won't -- and,
22 you know, I won't allow a long -- what I imagine might be
23 problematic is you attempting to assert some other expert's
24 opinion, undisclosed expert opinion, and then say, Are you
25 familiar with that? So that you're effectively putting in
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017949
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document