DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
730 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
730 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing from October 29, 2021, argues against the admissibility of expert opinions from a treatment provider named Rocchio. The filing contends that Rocchio's opinions on grooming are based solely on personal experience, lack a reliable methodology, and are not supported by scientific literature. It cites various legal precedents and an academic article to assert that her testimony fails to meet the standards for expert witnesses.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Rocchio | Treatment provider / Expert |
An expert whose opinions on grooming are being challenged in the document.
|
| Natalie Bennett | Author |
Co-author of the article 'The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse'.
|
| William O’Donohue | Author |
Co-author of the article 'The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse'.
|
| Askin | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case name 'Primavera Familienstiftung v. Askin'.
|
| Schneider | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case name 'United States v. Schneider'.
|
| Casey | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the case name 'Casey v. Merck & Co.'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory Committee | Government committee |
Mentioned in reference to the 'Advisory Committee’s Note to the 2000 Amendments' for Fed. R. Evid. 702.
|
| Merck & Co. | Company |
Mentioned in the case name 'Casey v. Merck & Co.'.
|
| DOJ | Government agency |
Implied by the footer 'DOJ-OGR-00005635'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (2)
The document states Rocchio is a 'treatment provider of individuals who claim to have suffered trauma' and refers to 'her patients'.
They are listed as co-authors of the article 'The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse'.
Key Quotes (5)
"there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring."Source
— Natalie Bennett & William O’Donohue
(Quoted from their article 'The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse' to argue against the reliability of opinions on grooming.)
DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
Quote #1
"must do more than aver conclusorily that [her] experience led to [her] opinion,"Source
— Primavera Familienstiftung v. Askin
(A legal standard cited to argue that an expert's opinion based solely on experience is insufficient.)
DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
Quote #2
"propound a particular interpretation of [a party’s] conduct."Source
— Primavera Familienstiftung v. Askin
(A legal standard cited to argue what an expert must do more than.)
DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
Quote #3
"solely or primarily on experience, the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts."Source
— Advisory Committee’s Note to the 2000 Amendments
(Quoted from the notes on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to establish the requirements for expert testimony based on experience.)
DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
Quote #4
"[t]here is also no known or identified rate of error to [Rocchio’s] conclusion, nor is there a reliable method or a series of factors guiding [Rocchio’s] conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating [her] abuse."Source
— United States v. Schneider
(Quoted from a court case to argue that Rocchio's opinion lacks reliability and a known error rate.)
DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,148 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 386 Filed 10/29/21 Page 11 of 24
sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography”). To be sure, the
government’s notice and Rocchio’s CV do not point to a single study, report, or article (peer-
reviewed or otherwise) establishing the reliability of her opinions on grooming. To the contrary,
a review of grooming literature shows that grooming does not have a consistent definition and
“there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring.” Natalie
Bennett & William O’Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child
Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014).
Rocchio’s opinions appear to be based on her personal experience as a treatment provider
of individuals who claim to have suffered trauma. But an expert basing her opinion solely on
experience “must do more than aver conclusorily that [her] experience led to [her] opinion,” and
she must do more than “propound a particular interpretation of [a party’s] conduct.” Primavera
Familienstiftung v. Askin, 130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).4 An expert relies “solely or
primarily on experience, the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion
reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is
reliably applied to the facts.” Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee’s Note to the 2000
Amendments. Rocchio cannot provide that required explanation here.
First, nothing beyond Rocchio’s personal opinion corroborates the allegations by her
patients. Rocchio simply assumes her patients are telling the truth when they claim they were
abused. This assumption fatally undermines the reliability of her opinion because “[t]here is also
no known or identified rate of error to [Rocchio’s] conclusion, nor is there a reliable method or a
series of factors guiding [Rocchio’s] conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating
[her] abuse.” United States v. Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at *4 (E.D. Pa.
government’s notice and Rocchio’s CV do not point to a single study, report, or article (peer-
reviewed or otherwise) establishing the reliability of her opinions on grooming. To the contrary,
a review of grooming literature shows that grooming does not have a consistent definition and
“there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring.” Natalie
Bennett & William O’Donohue, The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse, 23 J. Child
Sexual Abuse 957, 974 (2014).
Rocchio’s opinions appear to be based on her personal experience as a treatment provider
of individuals who claim to have suffered trauma. But an expert basing her opinion solely on
experience “must do more than aver conclusorily that [her] experience led to [her] opinion,” and
she must do more than “propound a particular interpretation of [a party’s] conduct.” Primavera
Familienstiftung v. Askin, 130 F. Supp. 2d 450, 530 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).4 An expert relies “solely or
primarily on experience, the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion
reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is
reliably applied to the facts.” Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee’s Note to the 2000
Amendments. Rocchio cannot provide that required explanation here.
First, nothing beyond Rocchio’s personal opinion corroborates the allegations by her
patients. Rocchio simply assumes her patients are telling the truth when they claim they were
abused. This assumption fatally undermines the reliability of her opinion because “[t]here is also
no known or identified rate of error to [Rocchio’s] conclusion, nor is there a reliable method or a
series of factors guiding [Rocchio’s] conclusion as to whether an individual victim is fabricating
[her] abuse.” United States v. Schneider, No. CRIM.A. 10-29, 2010 WL 3734055, at *4 (E.D. Pa.
4 Abrogated on other grounds by Casey v. Merck & Co., 653 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir. 2011).
6
DOJ-OGR-00005635
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document