DOJ-OGR-00005801.jpg
714 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
714 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, argues against the defendant's claim regarding expert testimony in a sex trafficking case. It cites Judge Engelmayer's reasoning from another case (United States v. Randall) to assert that statistical error rates are an 'unusually poor fit' for evaluating qualitative research on trauma and grooming. The document concludes that the proper way to challenge the expert's (Dr. Rocchio's) findings is through cross-examination before a jury, not by deeming them irrelevant under a Daubert analysis.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Joseph |
Mentioned in a case citation: 'Joseph, 542 F.3d at 21-22'.
|
|
| Judge Engelmayer | Judge |
Cited as having explained that analyzing error rates is an 'unusually poor fit' when evaluating expert testimony in s...
|
| Randall |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)'.
|
|
| Dr. Rocchio | Doctor/Expert |
An expert whose qualitative research is being discussed. The document states the defendant is free to cross-examine her.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'United States v. Randall'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2020-02-25
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a case citation, indicating the Southern District of New York.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes an adversarial legal relationship where the defendant has the right to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio, an expert witness, about her methodologies and conclusions.
Key Quotes (3)
"unusually poor fit"Source
— Judge Engelmayer
(Describing the application of error rate analysis to expert testimony in sex trafficking cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00005801.jpg
Quote #1
"[S]tudying the circumstances and psychological drivers of trafficked women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in laboratory animals. . . . Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a study, given the small size of the populations under review, and given the inherently individualized circumstances presented by different perpetrators, victims, and contexts in this tumultuous and emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the vocabulary of error rates . . . is an unusually poor fit. . . . The testing that has been done as to trauma bonding and coercive control, instead, necessarily uses more qualitative research methodologies. These involve interviews and case studies and clinical examinations conducted over time."Source
— Judge Engelmayer
(A quote explaining why traditional error rate analysis is not suitable for expert testimony in sex trafficking cases.)
DOJ-OGR-00005801.jpg
Quote #2
"impregnable for purposes of cross examination."Source
— defendant
(A claim made by the defendant regarding the opinions being discussed, which the document refutes.)
DOJ-OGR-00005801.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,160 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 18 of 84
.” Joseph, 542 F.3d at 21-22 (first and second alterations in original) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
quotation marks omitted).
That point is particularly true in sex trafficking cases. As Judge Engelmayer explained
when evaluating the testimony of a similar expert in a sex trafficking case, analyzing error rates is
an “unusually poor fit” in this area:
when evaluating the testimony of a similar expert in a sex trafficking case, analyzing error rates is
an “unusually poor fit” in this area:
[S]tudying the circumstances and psychological drivers of trafficked
women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in laboratory
animals. . . . Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a
study, given the small size of the populations under review, and
given the inherently individualized circumstances presented by
different perpetrators, victims, and contexts in this tumultuous and
emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the vocabulary of
error rates . . . is an unusually poor fit. . . . The testing that has been
done as to trauma bonding and coercive control, instead, necessarily
uses more qualitative research methodologies. These involve
interviews and case studies and clinical examinations conducted
over time.”
women is not like studying diseases or potential cures in laboratory
animals. . . . Given the necessarily retrospective nature of such a
study, given the small size of the populations under review, and
given the inherently individualized circumstances presented by
different perpetrators, victims, and contexts in this tumultuous and
emotionally fraught area of criminal conduct, the vocabulary of
error rates . . . is an unusually poor fit. . . . The testing that has been
done as to trauma bonding and coercive control, instead, necessarily
uses more qualitative research methodologies. These involve
interviews and case studies and clinical examinations conducted
over time.”
Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 29:4-30:20, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No.
335. Because statistical rigor is not a useful method for evaluating the reliability of qualitative
research like Dr. Rocchio’s, statistical tools like error rates are irrelevant to the Daubert analysis.
335. Because statistical rigor is not a useful method for evaluating the reliability of qualitative
research like Dr. Rocchio’s, statistical tools like error rates are irrelevant to the Daubert analysis.
Contrary to the defendant’s next claim, these opinions are not “impregnable for purposes
of cross examination.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The
defendant is free to cross Dr. Rocchio on how frequently she sees grooming in her patients and
how she evaluates whether they are telling the truth. The defendant is also free to explore, in cross
examination, the difficulties in assessing whether a patient has been groomed. The defense can
also make arguments—in cross examination and in jury addresses—about the lack of quantitative
rigor in this qualitative area of science. That is the point: it is for the jury, after hearing the
of cross examination.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The
defendant is free to cross Dr. Rocchio on how frequently she sees grooming in her patients and
how she evaluates whether they are telling the truth. The defendant is also free to explore, in cross
examination, the difficulties in assessing whether a patient has been groomed. The defense can
also make arguments—in cross examination and in jury addresses—about the lack of quantitative
rigor in this qualitative area of science. That is the point: it is for the jury, after hearing the
17
DOJ-OGR-00005801
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document