{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "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 16 of 41\n\nproxy”—a term that Dr. Rocchio does not employ and that the defense has attempted to inject into the case—is not supported by the literature, that terminological claim is of course irrelevant to any issue. To the extent that Dr. Dietz purports to claim that there is no authority supporting the notion that a perpetrator can groom a victim for the purpose of making the victim engage in sexual activities with others, this claim is patently unreliable, as Dr. Rocchio will explain at the Daubert hearing; there is in fact ample literature on the pimp-prostitute relationship and other instances in which third parties groom an individual for the benefit of someone else. And if the Court excludes Dr. Rocchio's opinion on this issue, Dr. Dietz's opinion is irrelevant.\n\nThe Government acknowledges that Dr. Dietz can offer reliable, relevant opinions in response to Dr. Rocchio. But Dr. Dietz's proposed opinions include legal argument, opinions that invade the province of the jury, and opinions that are themselves unreliable. Those should be excluded.\n\n2. Opinions as to Hindsight Bias\n\nDr. Dietz's opinions that hindsight bias exists and should “temper” conclusions about whether to impute knowledge to an individual (Ex. A at 5) do not convey any relevant information beyond the ken of the average juror and are not helpful to the jury. Instead, they are a virtually unprecedented attempt to psychoanalyze the jurors and to supplant both their role as judges of the facts and the Court's role in instructing them.\n\nThe only possible relevance of hindsight bias in this case is the supposed bias of the jurors themselves. This is not a case where it matters whether the opinion of a witness or a party at some point suffered from hindsight bias. The primary purpose of the testimony is to convince the jurors to “temper” any conclusion that the defendant formed the requisite intent because the jurors might be suffering from hindsight bias. (Ex. A at 5). Of course a factfinder should not confuse the 12\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006227",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 16 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "proxy”—a term that Dr. Rocchio does not employ and that the defense has attempted to inject into the case—is not supported by the literature, that terminological claim is of course irrelevant to any issue. To the extent that Dr. Dietz purports to claim that there is no authority supporting the notion that a perpetrator can groom a victim for the purpose of making the victim engage in sexual activities with others, this claim is patently unreliable, as Dr. Rocchio will explain at the Daubert hearing; there is in fact ample literature on the pimp-prostitute relationship and other instances in which third parties groom an individual for the benefit of someone else. And if the Court excludes Dr. Rocchio's opinion on this issue, Dr. Dietz's opinion is irrelevant.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government acknowledges that Dr. Dietz can offer reliable, relevant opinions in response to Dr. Rocchio. But Dr. Dietz's proposed opinions include legal argument, opinions that invade the province of the jury, and opinions that are themselves unreliable. Those should be excluded.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Opinions as to Hindsight Bias",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dr. Dietz's opinions that hindsight bias exists and should “temper” conclusions about whether to impute knowledge to an individual (Ex. A at 5) do not convey any relevant information beyond the ken of the average juror and are not helpful to the jury. Instead, they are a virtually unprecedented attempt to psychoanalyze the jurors and to supplant both their role as judges of the facts and the Court's role in instructing them.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The only possible relevance of hindsight bias in this case is the supposed bias of the jurors themselves. This is not a case where it matters whether the opinion of a witness or a party at some point suffered from hindsight bias. The primary purpose of the testimony is to convince the jurors to “temper” any conclusion that the defendant formed the requisite intent because the jurors might be suffering from hindsight bias. (Ex. A at 5). Of course a factfinder should not confuse the 12",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006227",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Dr. Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006227"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing expert testimony and hindsight bias. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}