DOJ-OGR-00013877.jpg
658 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
658 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript of a judge's ruling. The judge denies the government's motion to preclude testimony from Dr. Loftus, an expert on 'suggestive activities,' on the condition that she testifies as a 'blind expert' without applying her opinions to the specific facts of the case. The judge finds that the defense has established a proper foundation for this testimony by cross-examining a witness, Jane, about the government's own potentially suggestive questioning tactics.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Loftus | Blind Expert |
Mentioned as an expert witness whose opinions on suggestive activities are being discussed for admissibility in court.
|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert Witness |
Mentioned as another expert who offered testimony on examples of grooming, used as a comparison for Dr. Loftus's pote...
|
| Jane | Witness |
A witness who was cross-examined by the defense regarding the government's questioning during an interview.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The government | government agency |
A party in the legal case that argued to preclude Dr. Loftus's testimony and questioned the witness Jane.
|
| The defense | legal team |
A party in the legal case that provided a foundation for Dr. Loftus's testimony by cross-examining witnesses.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A judge denied the government's motion to preclude the testimony of Dr. Loftus, a blind expert, on the topic of suggestive activities.
Court
The defense cross-examined witness Jane about the government asking her the same question three times in one interview.
Court
Relationships (3)
The document details a legal dispute where the government filed a motion against the defense's expert witness, and the defense is cross-examining witnesses about the government's conduct.
Dr. Loftus is set to testify as an expert witness, and the defense has provided a foundation for her testimony, implying she is a witness for the defense.
The government interviewed Jane, and the defense later cross-examined Jane about the nature of the government's questions during that interview.
Key Quotes (1)
"The Lion King didn't come out until 1997"Source
— the government
(This information was communicated by the government to the witness Jane through her attorney, and was brought up by the defense as an example of suggestive questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00013877.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,720 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 246
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 Dr. Loftus's opinions on suggestive activities are generally
2 admissible. The government argues that the above two opinions,
3 however, lack a foundation in the record. I'm going to deny
4 the government's motion to preclude here, but with guidance.
5 First, as we've discussed and I've made clear, Dr.
6 Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning
7 that she'll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it
8 to the facts of the case. And just as Dr. Rocchio offered
9 testimony that included examples of grooming, variety of
10 grooming examples or factors that might make a child vulnerable
11 to sexual abuse, it seems comparable to me that Dr. Loftus can
12 offer examples of suggestive activity, including the two
13 examples the government seeks to exclude. So long as her
14 testimony does not state that those activities occurred in this
15 case or go into any specifics of the case, that would be beyond
16 the bounds of a blind expert.
17 Second, I think there is -- the defense has provided
18 an adequate foundation for expert opinion on suggestive
19 questioning by the government by cross-examining witnesses
20 about the questions they were asked. For example, the defense
21 on cross-examination of Jane asked about the government asking
22 her the same question three times in the same interview, trial
23 transcript at 515. And Jane testified that the government,
24 quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion
25 King didn't come out until 1997, which the defense also
2 admissible. The government argues that the above two opinions,
3 however, lack a foundation in the record. I'm going to deny
4 the government's motion to preclude here, but with guidance.
5 First, as we've discussed and I've made clear, Dr.
6 Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning
7 that she'll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it
8 to the facts of the case. And just as Dr. Rocchio offered
9 testimony that included examples of grooming, variety of
10 grooming examples or factors that might make a child vulnerable
11 to sexual abuse, it seems comparable to me that Dr. Loftus can
12 offer examples of suggestive activity, including the two
13 examples the government seeks to exclude. So long as her
14 testimony does not state that those activities occurred in this
15 case or go into any specifics of the case, that would be beyond
16 the bounds of a blind expert.
17 Second, I think there is -- the defense has provided
18 an adequate foundation for expert opinion on suggestive
19 questioning by the government by cross-examining witnesses
20 about the questions they were asked. For example, the defense
21 on cross-examination of Jane asked about the government asking
22 her the same question three times in the same interview, trial
23 transcript at 515. And Jane testified that the government,
24 quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion
25 King didn't come out until 1997, which the defense also
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013877
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document