DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
692 KB
Extraction Summary
10
People
8
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (court opinion/memorandum)
File Size:
692 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding 'grooming' and the psychological relationship between sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, citing numerous appellate court precedents (9th, 8th, 10th, 5th, and 2nd Circuits) to support the validity/relevance of such testimony. The filing notes that the defendant is attempting to rely on a single contrary case from the District of Maine.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Defendant |
The subject of the legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE refers to United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell).
|
| Telles | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Telles regarding expert testimony on grooming.
|
| Johnson | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Johnson regarding expert background information.
|
| Halamek | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Halamek regarding reliability of grooming testimony.
|
| Isabella | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Isabella regarding establishing grooming via expert witness.
|
| Hitt | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Hitt regarding the grooming process.
|
| Morris | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in Morris v. State regarding grooming evidence.
|
| Brand | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Brand regarding grooming evidence supporting a verdict.
|
| Cabrera | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Cabrera, which abrogated Brand on other grounds.
|
| Raymond | Defendant in cited case |
Cited in United States v. Raymond; the case the main defendant is relying upon.
|
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| 9th Cir. |
Appellate Court cited in legal precedents (Telles, Halamek)
|
|
| 8th Cir. |
Appellate Court cited in legal precedents (Johnson)
|
|
| 10th Cir. |
Appellate Court cited in legal precedents (Isabella)
|
|
| 5th Cir. |
Appellate Court cited in legal precedents (Hitt)
|
|
| Tx. Ct. Crim. App. |
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cited in legal precedents (Morris)
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Appellate Court cited in legal precedents (Brand, Cabrera)
|
|
| District of Maine |
Court jurisdiction for the Raymond case
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated in footer stamp DOJ-OGR-00005797)
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court case United States v. Raymond
|
Relationships (1)
Victims of sexual abuse
→
Psychological
→
Perpetrators
Text discusses 'psychological relationship between victims of sexual abuse and their perpetrators'
Key Quotes (4)
"Courts have also specifically authorized expert testimony on the subject of grooming."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
Quote #1
"Grooming can be established by use of an expert witness who testifies about psychological tactics that are common in cases of child sex abuse."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
Quote #2
"expert testimony on grooming was 'relevant, reliable, and properly admitted'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
Quote #3
"Against this weight of authority, the defendant relies principally on one case from the District of Maine."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,986 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 14 of 84
some sort of empirical scientific testing,” and that “those arguments go to the weight, not the
admissibility, of her proposed testimony”).
admissibility, of her proposed testimony”).
As noted above, courts have frequently admitted testimony about the psychological
relationship between victims of sexual abuse and their perpetrators. See supra pp. 7-8. Courts
have also specifically authorized expert testimony on the subject of grooming. See, e.g., United
States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086, 1097-1098 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that admission of expert
testimony on grooming did not violate Federal Rules of Evidence 702 or 403 nor violate due
process and finding that the expert “‘merely gave a straightforward account of relevant background
information based on [the expert’s] own knowledge and experience’” (quoting United States v.
Johnson, 860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017))); United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89
(9th Cir. 2021) (holding that expert testimony on grooming was “relevant, reliable, and properly
admitted”); United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816, 833 n.15 (10th Cir. 2019) (“Grooming can be
established by use of an expert witness who testifies about psychological tactics that are common
in cases of child sex abuse.”); United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming
expert testimony on the “grooming process”); Morris v. State, 361 S.W.3d 649, 656-69 (Tx. Ct.
Crim. App. 2011) (collecting cases showing that “grooming evidence has been received by courts
from numerous types of experts”); see also United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir.
2006), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Cabrera, 13 F.4th 140 (2d Cir. 2021)
(noting that evidence of grooming supported the jury’s verdict).
relationship between victims of sexual abuse and their perpetrators. See supra pp. 7-8. Courts
have also specifically authorized expert testimony on the subject of grooming. See, e.g., United
States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086, 1097-1098 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that admission of expert
testimony on grooming did not violate Federal Rules of Evidence 702 or 403 nor violate due
process and finding that the expert “‘merely gave a straightforward account of relevant background
information based on [the expert’s] own knowledge and experience’” (quoting United States v.
Johnson, 860 F.3d 1133, 1141 (8th Cir. 2017))); United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89
(9th Cir. 2021) (holding that expert testimony on grooming was “relevant, reliable, and properly
admitted”); United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816, 833 n.15 (10th Cir. 2019) (“Grooming can be
established by use of an expert witness who testifies about psychological tactics that are common
in cases of child sex abuse.”); United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir. 2006) (affirming
expert testimony on the “grooming process”); Morris v. State, 361 S.W.3d 649, 656-69 (Tx. Ct.
Crim. App. 2011) (collecting cases showing that “grooming evidence has been received by courts
from numerous types of experts”); see also United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 203 (2d Cir.
2006), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Cabrera, 13 F.4th 140 (2d Cir. 2021)
(noting that evidence of grooming supported the jury’s verdict).
Against this weight of authority, the defendant relies principally on one case from the
District of Maine. United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). The proposed
District of Maine. United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). The proposed
13
DOJ-OGR-00005797
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document