DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
697 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
697 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 16 of a filing from October 29, 2021, argues that the proposed expert testimony and 'grooming opinions' of an individual named Roccio should be deemed inadmissible. The author contends that Roccio's testimony is substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403, fails to meet the Daubert standard for scientific reliability, and oversimplifies complex issues, thereby risking misleading the jury. The argument is supported by citations from several court cases, including United States v. Burns and Gonyer, which criticize similar 'grooming theories'.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Roccio | Expert witness (implied) |
Mentioned throughout the document as the individual whose 'grooming opinions' and proposed testimony are being challe...
|
| Bennett | Author |
Cited as an author in 'Bennett & O’Donohue, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse at 974'.
|
| O'Donohue | Author |
Cited as an author in 'Bennett & O’Donohue, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse at 974'.
|
| Burns | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'United States v. Burns, No. 07 CR 556, 2009 WL 3617448'.
|
| Gonyer | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020'.
|
| Raymond | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the citation 'Raymond, 700 F.Supp.2d at 150'.
|
| Daubert | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned in the context of the 'Daubert standard' for expert testimony and the citation 'Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned in reference to its recognition that expert evidence can be misleading.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the citation for United States v. Burns, indicating the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of...
|
Key Quotes (7)
"[I]t appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard."Source
— Bennett & O’Donohue
(Quoted from '23 J. Child Sexual Abuse at 974' to argue against the use of grooming testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
Quote #1
"radically simplify"Source
— Author of the document
(Used to describe the effect of Roccio's proposed testimony on a complex case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
Quote #2
"foist a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all . . . radically simplifyi[ng] the mess of . . . competing feelings, urges, and needs over the course of [a] relationship into the neat dichotomy of victim and predator."Source
— The Court in United States v. Burns
(Quoted to explain how Roccio's 'grooming theory' is problematic.)
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
Quote #3
"invite the jury to so label a defendant"Source
— The Court in Gonyer
(Quoted to describe the effect of testimony about the 'attributes of a sexual predator'.)
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
Quote #4
"runs the risk of creating a false sense of expert infallibility in an area of testimony that has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny."Source
— The Court in Gonyer
(Quoted to argue that Roccio's testimony creates a false sense of expert infallibility.)
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
Quote #5
"a toxic mixture of purported expertise and common sense"Source
— The Court in Raymond
(Cited from the Gonyer case to describe testimony that has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny.)
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
Quote #6
"[e]xpert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it."Source
— Supreme Court
(Quoted from the Daubert case to support the argument that Roccio's testimony should be excluded.)
DOJ-OGR-00005640.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,052 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 386 Filed 10/29/21 Page 16 of 24
intent or the truthfulness of the victim’s testimony—does not satisfy the fit or reliability
requirements” of Rule 702); Bennett & O’Donohue, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse at 974 (“[I]t
appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not
meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard.”).
requirements” of Rule 702); Bennett & O’Donohue, 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse at 974 (“[I]t
appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not
meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard.”).
4. Roccio’s grooming opinions are substantially more prejudicial than
probative.
probative.
Roccio’s proposed testimony is also inadmissible under Rule 403. For one thing, it will
“radically simplify” an otherwise complex case. See United States v. Burns, No. 07 CR 556,
2009 WL 3617448, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2009) (criticizing the “grooming theory” in in the
context of a sentencing guidelines calculation). As the Court explained in United States v. Burns,
Roccio’s “grooming theory” can “foist a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which
might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all . . . radically simplifyi[ng] the
mess of . . . competing feelings, urges, and needs over the course of [a] relationship into the neat
dichotomy of victim and predator.” Id. See Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at * 3 (to describe the
so-called “attributes of a sexual predator” is to “invite the jury to so label a defendant” a sexual
predator).
“radically simplify” an otherwise complex case. See United States v. Burns, No. 07 CR 556,
2009 WL 3617448, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2009) (criticizing the “grooming theory” in in the
context of a sentencing guidelines calculation). As the Court explained in United States v. Burns,
Roccio’s “grooming theory” can “foist a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which
might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all . . . radically simplifyi[ng] the
mess of . . . competing feelings, urges, and needs over the course of [a] relationship into the neat
dichotomy of victim and predator.” Id. See Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at * 3 (to describe the
so-called “attributes of a sexual predator” is to “invite the jury to so label a defendant” a sexual
predator).
For another thing, her testimony “runs the risk of creating a false sense of expert
infallibility in an area of testimony that has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny.” Gonyer,
2012 WL 3043020, at * 3 (citing Raymond, 700 F.Supp.2d at 150 (“a toxic mixture of purported
expertise and common sense”)). This is particularly true given the Supreme Court’s recognition
that “[e]xpert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in
evaluating it.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595.
infallibility in an area of testimony that has not been subjected to scientific scrutiny.” Gonyer,
2012 WL 3043020, at * 3 (citing Raymond, 700 F.Supp.2d at 150 (“a toxic mixture of purported
expertise and common sense”)). This is particularly true given the Supreme Court’s recognition
that “[e]xpert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in
evaluating it.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595.
Were there any doubt about the reliability or relevance of Roccio’s grooming opinions,
which there isn’t, the Court should still exclude her testimony under Rule 403.
which there isn’t, the Court should still exclude her testimony under Rule 403.
11
DOJ-OGR-00005640
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document