DOJ-OGR-00005816.jpg
657 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
657 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, discusses the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio. The Government intends to use this testimony to provide background on victim behavior, specifically why victims might return to their abusers like the defendant and Epstein. The document also references an October 11, 2021 letter where the Government notified the defense about specific evidence and witness testimony it plans to present at trial.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Rocchio | Qualified Expert |
Mentioned as a qualified expert whose testimony the Government seeks to offer as background to help the jury understa...
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in the context of why Minor Victims may have returned to him and the defendant.
|
|
| Randall |
Cited in a legal case reference (Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE)) regarding expert testimony.
|
|
| Daubert |
Cited in a legal case reference (Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-595) regarding the tools to debunk expert testimony.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
A party in the legal case, seeking to offer expert testimony and notifying the defense of evidence.
|
| Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the entity that would admit Dr. Rocchio's testimony.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-10-11
The Government notified the defense of certain evidence it may offer at trial.
Government
the defense
Relationships (3)
The Government seeks to offer Dr. Rocchio's testimony as a qualified expert in their case.
The document describes the standard legal process in an adversarial system, where the Government presents evidence and the defense has the opportunity to challenge it.
Minor Victims
→
victim-perpetrator
→
defendant and Epstein
The document discusses Dr. Rocchio's testimony as relevant to explaining 'why the Minor Victims may have returned to the defendant and Epstein without being physically forced to do so'.
Key Quotes (1)
"Daubert instructs that vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence are the central tools available to an adversary who wishes to debunk an expert’s testimony."Source
— Randall case citation
(Used to support the argument that the defendant can challenge Dr. Rocchio's testimony through cross-examination rather than having it excluded.)
DOJ-OGR-00005816.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,917 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 33 of 84
Instead, the Government will seek to offer Dr. Rocchio’s testimony as background in this case. “Daubert instructs that vigorous cross-examination and the presentation of contrary evidence are the central tools available to an adversary who wishes to debunk an expert’s testimony.” Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE), Dkt. No. 335 at 37 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-595). Thus, to the extent the defendant wishes to cast doubt on the applicability of Dr. Rocchio’s background testimony, she is free to do so through cross-examination or by offering contrary evidence. As discussed above, Dr. Rocchio’s testimony is relevant to helping the jury understand key issues in the case, like why the Minor Victims may have returned to the defendant and Epstein without being physically forced to do so, and why they delayed disclosure.
* * *
The parties agree that Dr. Rocchio is a qualified expert. Her opinions are well within the range of reasonable expert opinions, and so are sufficiently reliable to go to the jury. And they will aid the jury in evaluating other testimony in this case. That is enough for the Court to admit Dr. Rocchio’s testimony.
II. The Evidence Contained in the Government’s October 11, 2021 Letter is Admissible
On October 11, 2021, the Government notified the defense of certain evidence it may offer at trial. In particular, the letter addressed [REDACTED] and the expected testimony of one potential witness. (See October 11, 2021 Letter, Def. Mot. 2 Ex. A). As the Government explained in its letter to the defense, the evidence constitutes direct evidence of the charged offenses, but the Government provided notice under Rule 404(b) in the alternative. That same day, the Government provided the defense with [REDACTED], along with copies of all other marked Government
32
DOJ-OGR-00005816
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document