DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
739 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
739 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a court filing, specifically Document 397 in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from a Dr. Rocchio, who would explain the psychological dynamics of abusive relationships to help the jury understand why victims might act in counterintuitive ways, such as returning to an abuser. The document cites several other cases to support the argument that such dynamics are beyond the common knowledge of an average juror, while also noting the defendant's objection that this type of testimony is not how Rule 702 is meant to work.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of his home being a site for sexual abuse and victims expressing affection for him and the d...
|
|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert witness |
Her potential testimony on the psychological dynamics of abusive relationships is the main subject of this page.
|
| Torres |
Mentioned in a case citation (Torres, 2021 WL 1947503).
|
|
| Dupigny |
Mentioned in a case citation (United States v. Dupigny).
|
|
| Randall |
Mentioned in a case citation (United States v. Randall).
|
|
| Raymond |
Mentioned in a case citation (Raymond, the District of Maine case).
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Rules Advisory Committee | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote regarding an observation about the 2000 amendment to rules on expert testimony.
|
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as a place where victims would return for sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Southern District of New York, mentioned in case citations for United States v. Dupigny and United States v. Randall.
|
|
|
Mentioned in a footnote as the location of the 'Raymond' case.
|
Relationships (1)
The document mentions that some victims "occasionally expressed affection for the defendant and Epstein," suggesting a close association between them in the context of the alleged crimes.
Key Quotes (6)
"psychological dynamic often seen in abusive relationships that leads an abuse victim to behave in counterintuitive ways, such as by declining to take opportunities to leave an abusive situation or by expressing gratitude to an abuser."Source
— Torres, 2021 WL 1947503
(Used to describe the subject of Dr. Rocchio's proposed testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
Quote #1
"beyond the knowledge of the average juror and would or could plainly be helpful in understanding the psychological dynamics at play."Source
— United States v. Dupigny, Oct. 17, 2019 Tr.
(Describing the psychological dynamic between a victim of child sexual abuse and her abusers.)
DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
Quote #2
"[B]y and large the relationship between prostitutes and pimps is not the subject of common knowledge. Jurors are not apt to intuitively understand the mechanisms that may lead a woman who is not physically restrained or confined to heed the demands of a pimp to traffic herself."Source
— United States v. Randall, Dkt. No. 335
(Cited as a comparison to the current case, arguing that certain complex relationships are not common knowledge for jurors.)
DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]hat is not how Rule 702 works."Source
— Defendant
(The defendant's argument against allowing Dr. Rocchio's testimony, expressing concern that a lay jury cannot apply her analyses.)
DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
Quote #4
"general principles is helpful only when it ‘describes widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena.’"Source
— Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12
(Quoted by the defendant from the Raymond case to argue against the admissibility of Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
Quote #5
"does not alter the venerable practice of using"Source
— Federal Rules Advisory Committee
(Part of an observation from the committee regarding the 2000 amendment on expert testimony, mentioned in a footnote.)
DOJ-OGR-00005804.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,183 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 21 of 84
return to Epstein’s home for sexual abuse, or why some occasionally expressed affection for the
defendant and Epstein.
defendant and Epstein.
Although Dr. Rocchio will not testify about these specific Minor Victims, her testimony
will help the jurors understand the “psychological dynamic often seen in abusive relationships that
leads an abuse victim to behave in counterintuitive ways, such as by declining to take opportunities
to leave an abusive situation or by expressing gratitude to an abuser.” Torres, 2021 WL 1947503,
at *7. This psychological dynamic between a victim of child sexual abuse and her abusers is
“beyond the knowledge of the average juror and would or could plainly be helpful in understanding
the psychological dynamics at play.” Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:3-7, United States v. Dupigny, No.
18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198; cf. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 38:13-20, United States
v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (“[B]y and large the relationship between
prostitutes and pimps is not the subject of common knowledge. Jurors are not apt to intuitively
understand the mechanisms that may lead a woman who is not physically restrained or confined
to heed the demands of a pimp to traffic herself.”). Accordingly, Dr. Rocchio’s testimony will
help the jury understand and contextualize the other testimony it will hear.4
will help the jurors understand the “psychological dynamic often seen in abusive relationships that
leads an abuse victim to behave in counterintuitive ways, such as by declining to take opportunities
to leave an abusive situation or by expressing gratitude to an abuser.” Torres, 2021 WL 1947503,
at *7. This psychological dynamic between a victim of child sexual abuse and her abusers is
“beyond the knowledge of the average juror and would or could plainly be helpful in understanding
the psychological dynamics at play.” Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:3-7, United States v. Dupigny, No.
18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 198; cf. See Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 38:13-20, United States
v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (“[B]y and large the relationship between
prostitutes and pimps is not the subject of common knowledge. Jurors are not apt to intuitively
understand the mechanisms that may lead a woman who is not physically restrained or confined
to heed the demands of a pimp to traffic herself.”). Accordingly, Dr. Rocchio’s testimony will
help the jury understand and contextualize the other testimony it will hear.4
The defendant expresses concern that a lay jury will be unable to apply Dr. Rocchio’s
analyses to the facts of this case, stating “[t]hat is not how Rule 702 works.” (Def. Mot. at 10).
analyses to the facts of this case, stating “[t]hat is not how Rule 702 works.” (Def. Mot. at 10).
4 Relying again on Raymond, the District of Maine case, the defendant argues that expert testimony
about “general principles is helpful only when it ‘describes widely recognized and highly
predictable and verifiable phenomena.’” (Def. Mot. 10 (quoting Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150
n.12 (alterations omitted)). That proposition comes from footnote 12 of Raymond, which
attempted to distinguish that expert’s “profile” testimony from the Federal Rules Advisory
Committee’s observation that the 2000 amendment “does not alter the venerable practice of using
20
about “general principles is helpful only when it ‘describes widely recognized and highly
predictable and verifiable phenomena.’” (Def. Mot. 10 (quoting Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150
n.12 (alterations omitted)). That proposition comes from footnote 12 of Raymond, which
attempted to distinguish that expert’s “profile” testimony from the Federal Rules Advisory
Committee’s observation that the 2000 amendment “does not alter the venerable practice of using
20
DOJ-OGR-00005804
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document