{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "28 of 41",
    "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 28 of 41\nsuch an opinion is irrelevant and should be precluded for lack of fit with the facts of the case. See, e.g., LVL XIII Brands, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d at 642; Boucher, 73 F.3d at 21 (\"expert testimony should be excluded if it is [inter alia] in essence an apples and oranges comparison\" (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)).\nTo the extent Dr. Dietz intends instead to opine on the former category, that opinion is not reliable. Such an opinion—essentially that it is highly unlikely for abuse victims to continue relationships with their abusers after the first act of sexual assault—is patently implausible and inconsistent with the extensive literature on grooming, the pimp-prostitute relationship, delayed disclosure of sexual assaults, and delayed onset of PTSD, all of which recognize the relative frequency with which victims of sexual assaults continue contact with their abusers. Indeed, such opinions would seem in great tension even with Dr. Dietz's own writings on grooming; if he truly believes that abused children are unlikely to continue contact with their abusers or wear clothing provided by their abusers, it would be hard to see how he could express surprise that \"even today, far too many people, including many who should know better, have difficulty grasping the possibility of nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent acquaintance molestation, as their preconceptions of childhood innocence and predatory molesters are too strong to allow them to accept that children can be so readily manipulated into doing or allowing things that others find abhorrent.\" (See Park Dietz, \"Grooming and Seduction\", 33 J. Interpersonal Violence 28, 29 (2018), Ex. D; see also Ex. A at 3 (citing id.)).\nTo the extent Dr. Dietz's opinion is intended to apply to the context of this case, the defense has clearly not to date carried the burden of establishing that the methods that led Dr. Dietz to offer this uncited and implausible opinion are subject to peer review and publication, have attained\n24\nDOJ-OGR-00006239",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 28 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "such an opinion is irrelevant and should be precluded for lack of fit with the facts of the case. See, e.g., LVL XIII Brands, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d at 642; Boucher, 73 F.3d at 21 (\"expert testimony should be excluded if it is [inter alia] in essence an apples and oranges comparison\" (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted)).\nTo the extent Dr. Dietz intends instead to opine on the former category, that opinion is not reliable. Such an opinion—essentially that it is highly unlikely for abuse victims to continue relationships with their abusers after the first act of sexual assault—is patently implausible and inconsistent with the extensive literature on grooming, the pimp-prostitute relationship, delayed disclosure of sexual assaults, and delayed onset of PTSD, all of which recognize the relative frequency with which victims of sexual assaults continue contact with their abusers. Indeed, such opinions would seem in great tension even with Dr. Dietz's own writings on grooming; if he truly believes that abused children are unlikely to continue contact with their abusers or wear clothing provided by their abusers, it would be hard to see how he could express surprise that \"even today, far too many people, including many who should know better, have difficulty grasping the possibility of nonforceful, nonthreatening, and nonviolent acquaintance molestation, as their preconceptions of childhood innocence and predatory molesters are too strong to allow them to accept that children can be so readily manipulated into doing or allowing things that others find abhorrent.\" (See Park Dietz, \"Grooming and Seduction\", 33 J. Interpersonal Violence 28, 29 (2018), Ex. D; see also Ex. A at 3 (citing id.)).\nTo the extent Dr. Dietz's opinion is intended to apply to the context of this case, the defense has clearly not to date carried the burden of establishing that the methods that led Dr. Dietz to offer this uncited and implausible opinion are subject to peer review and publication, have attained",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006239",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz",
      "Park Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21",
      "2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006239"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the testimony of Dr. Dietz in a sexual assault case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 28 of 41."
}