{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "443",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 18 of 24\n\nFinally, Rocchio's second opinion is inadmissible under Rules 704 and 403. It's inadmissible under Rule 704 because it amounts to an opinion that the alleged victims in this case are testifying truthfully. The credibility of the accusers, however, is a question for the jury to decide. It is not properly the subject of an expert opinion.\n\nRocchio's proposed testimony also violates Rule 403, because it risks jurors accepting her \"expert\" opinion as gospel at the expense of their duty to evaluate the evidence and to come to their own independent judgment. And because expert opinion testimony can be both \"powerful\" and \"misleading,\" Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, the balance weighs in favor of exclusion when the predicate for the opinion—grooming—is itself unreliable and not helpful to the jury.\n\nC. Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma.\n\nRocchio's third opinion—that repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma—has nothing to do with this case. It is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.\n\nThis case is about one thing: Whether the government can prove each of the elements of the indicted offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 215 (2d Cir. 2005) (\"[T]he jury's singular responsibility to decide from the evidence admitted at trial whether the government has carried its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\") That is the only thing the jury will be asked to decide, and it's a decision that has nothing to do with the \"long-term traumatic and psychological consequences\" of alleged abuse. Rocchio's opinions on those consequences are irrelevant under Rule 401 and 402, they will not assist the trier of fact in deciding the case, Fed. R. Evid. 702.\n\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00006604",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 18 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, Rocchio's second opinion is inadmissible under Rules 704 and 403. It's inadmissible under Rule 704 because it amounts to an opinion that the alleged victims in this case are testifying truthfully. The credibility of the accusers, however, is a question for the jury to decide. It is not properly the subject of an expert opinion.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rocchio's proposed testimony also violates Rule 403, because it risks jurors accepting her \"expert\" opinion as gospel at the expense of their duty to evaluate the evidence and to come to their own independent judgment. And because expert opinion testimony can be both \"powerful\" and \"misleading,\" Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595, the balance weighs in favor of exclusion when the predicate for the opinion—grooming—is itself unreliable and not helpful to the jury.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Opinion 3: Repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rocchio's third opinion—that repeated exploitation and abuse can increase the likelihood of victimization later in life and can result in long-term traumatic and psychological consequences, especially when it occurs in the context of complex trauma—has nothing to do with this case. It is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This case is about one thing: Whether the government can prove each of the elements of the indicted offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 215 (2d Cir. 2005) (\"[T]he jury's singular responsibility to decide from the evidence admitted at trial whether the government has carried its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.\") That is the only thing the jury will be asked to decide, and it's a decision that has nothing to do with the \"long-term traumatic and psychological consequences\" of alleged abuse. Rocchio's opinions on those consequences are irrelevant under Rule 401 and 402, they will not assist the trier of fact in deciding the case, Fed. R. Evid. 702.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006604",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 443",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006604"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the admissibility of expert testimony in a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}