DOJ-OGR-00005800.jpg
684 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal brief (case 1:20-cr-00330-pae)
File Size:
684 KB
Summary
This document is page 17 of a legal filing (Document 397) from October 29, 2021, in the case US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Government is arguing against the defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of expert witness Dr. Rocchio, a clinical psychologist. The text asserts that Dr. Rocchio's qualitative methodology is reliable based on her clinical experience, rather than statistical error rates, which the Government argues are inapplicable to this type of social science testimony under Daubert standards.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert Witness / Clinical Psychologist |
Government expert whose methodology regarding victim fabrication is being defended.
|
| The defendant | Defendant |
Challenging the reliability of Dr. Rocchio's opinions (contextually Ghislaine Maxwell based on case number).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government |
Defending the admissibility of their expert witness.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Cited for legal precedent regarding expert testimony.
|
|
| The Court |
The entity being asked to reject the defendant's claims.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2021-10-29
Filing of Document 397 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Court Record
Relationships (1)
Referred to as 'Government’s expert'
Key Quotes (3)
"Clinical psychologists are not so credulous."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005800.jpg
Quote #1
"The Court should reject the defendant’s speculative claim that Dr. Rocchio has been misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not occur."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005800.jpg
Quote #2
"In such cases, the place to quibble with [an expert’s] academic training is on cross-examination"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005800.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,034 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 17 of 84
patients are telling the truth.” (Def. Mot. 3 at 6). The defendant claims that this “fatally
undermines the reliability of her opinion” because her conclusion has “no known or identified rate
of error . . . 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.” (Id. (alterations and quotation marks
omitted)). Clinical psychologists are not so credulous. As part of Dr. Rocchio’s work as a
practicing clinician, she examines consistencies and inconsistencies in the information provided
by patients and assesses patient self-reporting in the context of literature and knowledge that she
has developed in her years of practice. As the Government’s expert notice makes clear, Dr.
Rocchio has treated hundreds and hundreds of patients in her decades of experience, and her
opinions are based in part on the significant patterns she has observed among the patients she has
treated. The Court should reject the defendant’s speculative claim that Dr. Rocchio has been
misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not
occur.
undermines the reliability of her opinion” because her conclusion has “no known or identified rate
of error . . . 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.” (Id. (alterations and quotation marks
omitted)). Clinical psychologists are not so credulous. As part of Dr. Rocchio’s work as a
practicing clinician, she examines consistencies and inconsistencies in the information provided
by patients and assesses patient self-reporting in the context of literature and knowledge that she
has developed in her years of practice. As the Government’s expert notice makes clear, Dr.
Rocchio has treated hundreds and hundreds of patients in her decades of experience, and her
opinions are based in part on the significant patterns she has observed among the patients she has
treated. The Court should reject the defendant’s speculative claim that Dr. Rocchio has been
misled by hundreds of patients who sought professional treatment for traumatic events that did not
occur.
In any event, the defendant’s argument about error rates misunderstands the nature of a
Daubert inquiry. An error rate is but one of the Daubert factors that may or may not be applicable
in every case. See Romano, 794 F.3d at 330. And in cases such as this, where a social science
expert is testifying based on qualitative methodology, that factor is inapplicable. See Torres, 2021
WL 1947503, at *6 n.8. As the Second Circuit has explained, “Peer review, publication, potential
error rate, etc. . . . are not applicable to this kind of testimony, whose reliability depends heavily
on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it. In
such cases, the place to quibble with [an expert’s] academic training is on cross-examination . . .
Daubert inquiry. An error rate is but one of the Daubert factors that may or may not be applicable
in every case. See Romano, 794 F.3d at 330. And in cases such as this, where a social science
expert is testifying based on qualitative methodology, that factor is inapplicable. See Torres, 2021
WL 1947503, at *6 n.8. As the Second Circuit has explained, “Peer review, publication, potential
error rate, etc. . . . are not applicable to this kind of testimony, whose reliability depends heavily
on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it. In
such cases, the place to quibble with [an expert’s] academic training is on cross-examination . . .
16
DOJ-OGR-00005800
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document