DOJ-OGR-00005639.jpg
744 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
744 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing, specifically page 15 of Document 386 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The author argues that the expert testimony of an individual named Rocchio regarding 'grooming' should be deemed inadmissible because it is not based on scientific studies, is too general, and will not help the jury understand the specific facts of the case. The argument relies on legal precedents from cases like Daubert, Raymond, and Gonyer to assert that Rocchio's opinions do not meet the standard for expert testimony.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Rocchio | Expert |
Mentioned as an expert whose opinions on grooming are being challenged as inadmissible in court.
|
| Gonyer | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the case United States v. Gonyer, which is cited as precedent.
|
| Raymond | Party in a legal case |
Mentioned as a party in the case Raymond, which is cited as precedent.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case "United States v. Gonyer" and referred to as "the government" in the current case.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00005639).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Referenced in a case citation (4th Cir. 1998), indicating the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
|
Relationships (1)
The document indicates the government intends to use Rocchio as an expert witness to provide opinions on grooming.
Key Quotes (4)
"An ‘expert’ opinion is considered unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert where, as here, the expert has developed the opinions expressly for purposes of testifying in the case, has [herself] performed no tests or studies that support [her] opinions, has cited no peer-reviewed, controlled studies substantiating [her] opinions, and fails to point to some objective source to show that [she has] followed the scientific method."Source
— Corp., 162 F.3d 1158, at *5 (4th Cir. 1998)
(Quoted as a legal standard for the inadmissibility of expert opinions.)
DOJ-OGR-00005639.jpg
Quote #1
"Rocchio’s grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact."Source
— Author of the document
(A heading for a section arguing against the admissibility of Rocchio's testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00005639.jpg
Quote #2
"‘Fit’ is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes."Source
— Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591
(Quoted from the Daubert case to argue against the applicability of Rocchio's general opinions.)
DOJ-OGR-00005639.jpg
Quote #3
"the government here “does not propose to have [Rocchio] relate [her] general opinions about grooming by sexual predators to the facts in this case.”"Source
— Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3
(Quoted to draw a parallel between the current case and the Gonyer case regarding expert testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00005639.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,190 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 386 Filed 10/29/21 Page 15 of 24
Corp., 162 F.3d 1158, at *5 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (“An ‘expert’ opinion is considered unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert where, as here, the expert has developed the opinions expressly for purposes of testifying in the case, has [herself] performed no tests or studies that support [her] opinions, has cited no peer-reviewed, controlled studies substantiating [her] opinions, and fails to point to some objective source to show that [she has] followed the scientific method.” (cleaned up)).
3. Rocchio’s grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact.
None of Rocchio’s opinions about grooming will “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 (“‘Fit’ is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes.”). As in Raymond and United States v. Gonyer, the government here “does not propose to have [Rocchio] relate [her] general opinions about grooming by sexual predators to the facts in this case.” Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3. Expert testimony about general principles is helpful only when it “describe[es] widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena.” Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12; Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3. But even Rocchio does not contend that “grooming” is a “widely and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena.” See Ex. 1.
Still, without any elucidation, Rocchio claims grooming “often” or “frequently occurs,” without providing the jury any explanation of how to decide whether grooming actually occurred in this case. The government thus wants Rocchio to describe her conception of grooming and then leave it to “a lay jury without guidance . . . to apply [her] analyses reliably to the facts of a case in determining guilt.” Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150. That is not how Rule 702 works. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 143 (grooming testimony “about the behavioral patterns of child molesters and their victims—as it might be used in this case to suggest the defendant’s criminal
10
DOJ-OGR-00005639
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document