{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32",
    "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 32 of 41\nwhich affirmed the district court's exclusion of expert testimony and finding that witness cross-examination was adequate to \"reveal any faults in the identification\").\nWith respect to Dr. Loftus specifically, several federal courts have excluded Dr. Loftus's testimony on memory as either unhelpful to the jury or as irrelevant given the facts of the case. See, e.g., Curry, 977 F.2d at 1050-52 (affirming district court's exclusion of Dr. Loftus's testimony about memory in the context of witness identifications, including the fading of memories, witness confidence in memories, distortion of memories); United States v. George, 975 F.2d 1431, 1432 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court's denial of funds to defendant to hire Dr. Loftus to testify regarding eyewitness identification); Moore, 798 F.2d at 1311-13 (affirming district court's exclusion of Dr. Loftus's testimony about memory in context of eyewitness identifications, including testimony about diminished memory and the incorporation of inaccurate post-event information); Shiraishi, 2019 WL 1386365, at *5-6 (excluding Dr. Loftus's testimony regarding the corruption of memory and related topics); Heine, 2017 WL 5260784, at *2 (excluding memory expert and discussing Dr. Loftus and Libby); Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 14 (excluding expert testimony of one expert in a case where the defendant also offered Dr. Loftus's research and testimony that the \"principles which [the expert] would testify to are not commonly understood by jurors\"); see also R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., 16 Civ. 01056, 2019 WL 6053223, at *10-13 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2019) (in civil case, excluding Dr. Loftus's testimony because it \"simply restates matters within the common understanding of lay jurors\" and because her opinions were speculative).10\n10 It appears that Dr. Loftus has also testified as an expert in federal cases. See, e.g., United States v. Seltzer, 794 F.2d 1114, 1118 (6th Cir. 1986) (discussing defense expert testimony of Dr. Loftus that it is not unusual for individuals to forget events); Lam v. City of San Jose, No. 14 Civ. 877 (PSG), 2015 WL 6954967, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (denying motion to preclude Dr. Loftus's testimony).\n28\nDOJ-OGR-00006243",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 32 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "which affirmed the district court's exclusion of expert testimony and finding that witness cross-examination was adequate to \"reveal any faults in the identification\").\nWith respect to Dr. Loftus specifically, several federal courts have excluded Dr. Loftus's testimony on memory as either unhelpful to the jury or as irrelevant given the facts of the case. See, e.g., Curry, 977 F.2d at 1050-52 (affirming district court's exclusion of Dr. Loftus's testimony about memory in the context of witness identifications, including the fading of memories, witness confidence in memories, distortion of memories); United States v. George, 975 F.2d 1431, 1432 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court's denial of funds to defendant to hire Dr. Loftus to testify regarding eyewitness identification); Moore, 798 F.2d at 1311-13 (affirming district court's exclusion of Dr. Loftus's testimony about memory in context of eyewitness identifications, including testimony about diminished memory and the incorporation of inaccurate post-event information); Shiraishi, 2019 WL 1386365, at *5-6 (excluding Dr. Loftus's testimony regarding the corruption of memory and related topics); Heine, 2017 WL 5260784, at *2 (excluding memory expert and discussing Dr. Loftus and Libby); Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 14 (excluding expert testimony of one expert in a case where the defendant also offered Dr. Loftus's research and testimony that the \"principles which [the expert] would testify to are not commonly understood by jurors\"); see also R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., 16 Civ. 01056, 2019 WL 6053223, at *10-13 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2019) (in civil case, excluding Dr. Loftus's testimony because it \"simply restates matters within the common understanding of lay jurors\" and because her opinions were speculative).10",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 It appears that Dr. Loftus has also testified as an expert in federal cases. See, e.g., United States v. Seltzer, 794 F.2d 1114, 1118 (6th Cir. 1986) (discussing defense expert testimony of Dr. Loftus that it is not unusual for individuals to forget events); Lam v. City of San Jose, No. 14 Civ. 877 (PSG), 2015 WL 6954967, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (denying motion to preclude Dr. Loftus's testimony).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "28",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006243",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Loftus",
      "Libby"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "City of San Jose"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "M.D. Pa.",
      "N.D. Cal.",
      "San Jose"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21",
      "Nov. 15, 2019",
      "Nov. 10, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "16 Civ. 01056",
      "No. 14 Civ. 877 (PSG)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006243"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the admissibility of expert testimony, specifically that of Dr. Loftus. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}