DOJ-OGR-00016501.jpg
658 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript / legal ruling
File Size:
658 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The judge is ruling to deny the government's motion to preclude the testimony of defense expert Dr. Loftus regarding 'suggestive activities,' provided she testifies as a 'blind expert' similar to Dr. Rocchio. The transcript mentions the cross-examination of a witness named 'Jane,' focusing on suggestive questioning by the government and a specific correction regarding the release date of the movie 'The Lion King' (1997).
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Dr. Loftus | Expert Witness (Defense) |
Testifying as a 'blind expert' on suggestive activities; subject of government motion to preclude.
|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert Witness |
Previously offered testimony on grooming and factors making children vulnerable to sexual abuse.
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Subject of cross-examination regarding government questioning and details about the movie 'The Lion King'.
|
| Judge | Presiding Official |
Speaker in the transcript (implied 'I'), ruling on the admissibility of Dr. Loftus's testimony.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting firm listed in footer.
|
|
| The Government |
Prosecution team, moved to preclude Dr. Loftus's testimony.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00016501).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY) based on reporter name and case context.
|
Relationships (2)
Judge compares Loftus's role as a blind expert to Rocchio's previous testimony on grooming.
Government interviewed Jane; Defense questioned Jane about Government's interview tactics.
Key Quotes (3)
"I'm going to deny the government's motion to preclude here, but with guidance."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016501.jpg
Quote #1
"Dr. Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning that she'll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it to the facts of the case."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016501.jpg
Quote #2
"Jane testified that the government, quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion King didn't come out until 1997..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016501.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,682 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 246 2313
LCGVMAX1
LCGVMAX1
1 Dr. Loftus's opinions on suggestive activities are generally
2 admissible. The government argues that the above two opinions,
3 however, lack a foundation in the record. I'm going to deny
4 the government's motion to preclude here, but with guidance.
5 First, as we've discussed and I've made clear, Dr.
6 Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning
7 that she'll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it
8 to the facts of the case. And just as Dr. Rocchio offered
9 testimony that included examples of grooming, variety of
10 grooming examples or factors that might make a child vulnerable
11 to sexual abuse, it seems comparable to me that Dr. Loftus can
12 offer examples of suggestive activity, including the two
13 examples the government seeks to exclude. So long as her
14 testimony does not state that those activities occurred in this
15 case or go into any specifics of the case, that would be beyond
16 the bounds of a blind expert.
17 Second, I think there is -- the defense has provided
18 an adequate foundation for expert opinion on suggestive
19 questioning by the government by cross-examining witnesses
20 about the questions they were asked. For example, the defense
21 on cross-examination of Jane asked about the government asking
22 her the same question three times in the same interview, trial
23 transcript at 515. And Jane testified that the government,
24 quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion
25 King didn't come out until 1997, which the defense also
2 admissible. The government argues that the above two opinions,
3 however, lack a foundation in the record. I'm going to deny
4 the government's motion to preclude here, but with guidance.
5 First, as we've discussed and I've made clear, Dr.
6 Loftus is testifying, I understand, as a blind expert, meaning
7 that she'll provide relevant expert opinion, but not apply it
8 to the facts of the case. And just as Dr. Rocchio offered
9 testimony that included examples of grooming, variety of
10 grooming examples or factors that might make a child vulnerable
11 to sexual abuse, it seems comparable to me that Dr. Loftus can
12 offer examples of suggestive activity, including the two
13 examples the government seeks to exclude. So long as her
14 testimony does not state that those activities occurred in this
15 case or go into any specifics of the case, that would be beyond
16 the bounds of a blind expert.
17 Second, I think there is -- the defense has provided
18 an adequate foundation for expert opinion on suggestive
19 questioning by the government by cross-examining witnesses
20 about the questions they were asked. For example, the defense
21 on cross-examination of Jane asked about the government asking
22 her the same question three times in the same interview, trial
23 transcript at 515. And Jane testified that the government,
24 quote, communicated to her through her attorney that The Lion
25 King didn't come out until 1997, which the defense also
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016501
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document