{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "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"Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 15 of 24\nCorp., 162 F.3d 1158, at *5 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (\"An 'expert' opinion is considered unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert where, as here, the expert has developed the opinions expressly for purposes of testifying in the case, has [herself] performed no tests or studies that support [her] opinions, has cited no peer-reviewed, controlled studies substantiating [her] opinions, and fails to point to some objective source to show that [she has] followed the scientific method.\" (cleaned up)).\n\n3. Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact.\nNone of Rocchio's opinions about grooming will \"assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.\" Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 (\"'Fit' is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes.\") As in Raymond and United States v. Gonyer, the government here \"does not propose to have [Rocchio] relate [her] general opinions about grooming by sexual predators to the facts in this case.\" Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3. Expert testimony about general principles is helpful only when it \"describe[es] widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena.\" Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12; Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3. But even Rocchio does not contend that \"grooming\" is a \"widely and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena.\" See Ex. 1.\nStill, without any elucidation, Rocchio claims grooming \"often\" or \"frequently occurs,\" without providing the jury any explanation of how to decide whether grooming actually occurred in this case. The government thus wants Rocchio to describe her conception of grooming and then leave it to \"a lay jury without guidance . . . to apply [her] analyses reliably to the facts of a case in determining guilt.\" Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150. That is not how Rule 702 works.\nRaymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 143 (grooming testimony \"about the behavioral patterns of child molesters and their victims—as it might be used in this case to suggest the defendant's criminal",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 443 Filed 11/12/21 Page 15 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Corp., 162 F.3d 1158, at *5 (4th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (\"An 'expert' opinion is considered unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert where, as here, the expert has developed the opinions expressly for purposes of testifying in the case, has [herself] performed no tests or studies that support [her] opinions, has cited no peer-reviewed, controlled studies substantiating [her] opinions, and fails to point to some objective source to show that [she has] followed the scientific method.\" (cleaned up)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. Rocchio's grooming opinions will not assist the trier of fact.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "None of Rocchio's opinions about grooming will \"assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.\" Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591 (\"'Fit' is not always obvious, and scientific validity for one purpose is not necessarily scientific validity for other, unrelated purposes.\") As in Raymond and United States v. Gonyer, the government here \"does not propose to have [Rocchio] relate [her] general opinions about grooming by sexual predators to the facts in this case.\" Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3. Expert testimony about general principles is helpful only when it \"describe[es] widely recognized and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena.\" Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12; Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3. But even Rocchio does not contend that \"grooming\" is a \"widely and highly predictable and verifiable phenomena.\" See Ex. 1.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Still, without any elucidation, Rocchio claims grooming \"often\" or \"frequently occurs,\" without providing the jury any explanation of how to decide whether grooming actually occurred in this case. The government thus wants Rocchio to describe her conception of grooming and then leave it to \"a lay jury without guidance . . . to apply [her] analyses reliably to the facts of a case in determining guilt.\" Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150. That is not how Rule 702 works.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 143 (grooming testimony \"about the behavioral patterns of child molesters and their victims—as it might be used in this case to suggest the defendant's criminal",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006601",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "1998"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 443",
      "162 F.3d 1158",
      "509 U.S.",
      "700 F. Supp. 2d",
      "2012 WL 3043020"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony regarding 'grooming' by sexual predators. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal proceeding and includes citations to various court cases and legal references."
}