DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
714 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
7
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
714 KB
Summary
This document is a legal filing that refutes the defense's arguments against the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio. The author argues that the defense misinterprets legal precedent, specifically the Raymond case, and that Dr. Rocchio's testimony, based on qualitative social science, is valid under the standards established by cases like Daubert and United States v. Ferguson. The filing defends the expert's methodology against claims that it is unreliable, uncorroborated, and lacks statistical precision.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert |
An expert whose opinion and testimony are being criticized by the defense.
|
| Joseph |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Joseph'.
|
|
| Ferguson |
Named in the case citation 'United States v. Ferguson'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Court | Judicial body |
Mentioned in reference to legal holdings and decisions, such as in the footnote regarding the Raymond case.
|
| Government | Government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as a party that could potentially call an expert in rebuttal.
|
| 2d Cir. | Judicial body |
Referenced in case citations (e.g., 2d Cir. 2008), indicating the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in a footnote when comparing the Raymond case to other cases within the current court's jurisdiction.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that 'the defense criticizes Dr. Rocchio for opining...' and details the 'defendant’s remaining critiques of Dr. Rocchio’s opinion'.
Key Quotes (7)
"what testing was involved, what data she considered, or how her conclusions can be verified."Source
— Defense (quoting Raymond)
(The defense's argument for why expert testimony is unreliable, based on the Raymond case.)
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
Quote #1
"frequently,"Source
— Dr. Rocchio
(Dr. Rocchio's opinion on the occurrence of sexual abuse of minors, which the defense criticizes for being non-specific.)
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
Quote #2
"half the time"Source
— Defense
(Used by the defense to criticize Dr. Rocchio's testimony for lacking specificity.)
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
Quote #3
"two-thirds of the time."Source
— Defense
(Used by the defense to criticize Dr. Rocchio's testimony for lacking specificity.)
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
Quote #4
"cannot have the exactness of hard science methodologies, and expert testimony need not be based on statistical analysis in order to be probative"Source
— Court (in United States v. Ferguson)
(A legal principle recognizing the nature of social science research, used to argue that Dr. Rocchio's testimony is admissible.)
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
Quote #5
"simply assumes her"Source
— Defendant
(The defendant's assertion that Dr. Rocchio's patients are uncorroborated.)
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
Quote #6
"counter a defense case that victim testimony in this case should not be believed because the victim delayed in reporting the abuse or did not report it consistently."Source
— Court (in Raymond)
(A possibility left open by the Raymond court for the Government to call an expert in rebuttal, which is being used to argue for permitting Dr. Rocchio's testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00005799.jpg
Quote #7
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,106 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 16 of 84
established pattern of victimization—attachment and coercion—experienced by victims of sexual abuse.
The defense would read Raymond to stand for the proposition that expert testimony is unreliable if it does not explain “what testing was involved, what data she considered, or how her conclusions can be verified.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 8). For instance, the defense criticizes Dr. Rocchio for opining that sexual abuse of minors occurs “frequently,” without specifying whether it occurs “half the time” or “two-thirds of the time.” (Id. at 7; see id. at 8 (quoting Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 148-49)). That is not what is required by Daubert in the context of qualitative social science, and it is not what many courts have held in the context of precisely this form of testimony, as explained above. To the extent Raymond stands for such a broad proposition, it is contrary to the law of this Circuit. See United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13, 21-22 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 276 n.14 (2d Cir. 2011) (recognizing that social science research “cannot have the exactness of hard science methodologies, and expert testimony need not be based on statistical analysis in order to be probative” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).²
The defendant’s remaining critiques of Dr. Rocchio’s opinion miss the mark. First, the defendant asserts that Dr. Rocchio’s patients are uncorroborated, and she “simply assumes her
² Even in Raymond, the Court left open the possibility that the Government could call the expert in rebuttal to “counter a defense case that victim testimony in this case should not be believed because the victim delayed in reporting the abuse or did not report it consistently.” 700 F. Supp. 2d at 156. Even were the Court inclined to follow Raymond rather than the cases in this District, it should similarly revisit permitting Dr. Rocchio to testify about the opinion at issue if the defense attacks victim credibility.
15
DOJ-OGR-00005799
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document