{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "424",
    "date": "11/08/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 26 of 41\n\ncreates a predicate that a witness has a condition creating such a “pathway.” And even then, as described above, it is likely that such an opinion, based on one article, would be unreliable, only marginally helpful to a jury that can understand the relationship between mental illness and truth-telling, and highly prejudicial by having an expert witness testify to the credibility of other witnesses. See Fed. R. Evid. 403..\n\n5. Opinions Regarding the Credibility of Witnesses\n\nDr. Dietz also offers several different opinions regarding the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. These are also not helpful to the jury.\n\nDr. Dietz’s opinion that emotional distress is not predictive of the truthfulness of an allegation invades the core of a jury’s competency—the evaluation of a witness’s demeanor. Indeed, in very similar circumstances, the Second Circuit has affirmed the exclusion of scientific expert testimony instructing the jury in how to assess a witness’s demeanor. See Lumpkin, 192 F.3d at 289 (barring expert from testifying that “confidence bears little or no relationship to accuracy in identifications,” reasoning that “Fundamental to the role of juror as trier of fact is the task of assessing witness credibility. And, a witness’s demeanor on the stand, including his or her confidence, impacts the assessment of credibility.”). The same result should apply here.\n\nSimilarly, Dr. Dietz’s opinion that “professionals” evaluate “[c]hanges in the core details of the allegations” to determine credibility (Ex. A at 10), also invades the province of the jury. How to reconcile inconsistencies in witness accounts, as part of assessing the credibility of witnesses, is at the core of the jury’s function. See, e.g., Lumpkin, 192 F.3d at 289. The Government expects that the Court will instruct the jury on how to assess the credibility of witnesses, and having one party’s witness lay down a set of expert-endorsed rules can only make it more difficult for the jurors to follow the Court’s instructions. See, e.g., Hygh, 961 F.2d at 364. 22\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006237",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 26 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "creates a predicate that a witness has a condition creating such a “pathway.” And even then, as described above, it is likely that such an opinion, based on one article, would be unreliable, only marginally helpful to a jury that can understand the relationship between mental illness and truth-telling, and highly prejudicial by having an expert witness testify to the credibility of other witnesses. See Fed. R. Evid. 403..",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5. Opinions Regarding the Credibility of Witnesses",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dr. Dietz also offers several different opinions regarding the assessment of the credibility of witnesses. These are also not helpful to the jury.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dr. Dietz’s opinion that emotional distress is not predictive of the truthfulness of an allegation invades the core of a jury’s competency—the evaluation of a witness’s demeanor. Indeed, in very similar circumstances, the Second Circuit has affirmed the exclusion of scientific expert testimony instructing the jury in how to assess a witness’s demeanor. See Lumpkin, 192 F.3d at 289 (barring expert from testifying that “confidence bears little or no relationship to accuracy in identifications,” reasoning that “Fundamental to the role of juror as trier of fact is the task of assessing witness credibility. And, a witness’s demeanor on the stand, including his or her confidence, impacts the assessment of credibility.”). The same result should apply here.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Similarly, Dr. Dietz’s opinion that “professionals” evaluate “[c]hanges in the core details of the allegations” to determine credibility (Ex. A at 10), also invades the province of the jury. How to reconcile inconsistencies in witness accounts, as part of assessing the credibility of witnesses, is at the core of the jury’s function. See, e.g., Lumpkin, 192 F.3d at 289. The Government expects that the Court will instruct the jury on how to assess the credibility of witnesses, and having one party’s witness lay down a set of expert-endorsed rules can only make it more difficult for the jurors to follow the Court’s instructions. See, e.g., Hygh, 961 F.2d at 364. 22",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006237",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006237"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the credibility of witnesses and the role of expert testimony. The text is well-formatted and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}