{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "516",
    "date": "11/21/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 11 of 17 testimony for a permissible purpose, the Court finds a substantial risk that jurors will instead use Dr. Dietz's testimony to evaluate the credibility of witnesses before them. This risk of confusing or misleading the jury substantially outweighs the little permissible relevance that the opinion has. The Defense in its response does not mention the third piece of Dr. Dietz's opinion on witness credibility, which is that victims of sexual abuse have higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse that “can affect memory and recall.” Notice at 11. It is unclear to the Court why this opinion is helpful to the jury or relevant to the Defense's case. Indeed, it seems directly contrary to the Defense's position at the Daubert hearing that it intends to impeach the credibility of some alleged victims because of their substance abuse. Nov. 10 Tr. at 156–57. Without more, the Court excludes this opinion under Rules 401 and 403 as irrelevant, as needlessly cumulative with Dr. Rocchio's opinion about substance abuse, and because it is likely to confuse the jury or needlessly inflame biases about individuals with mental illness. Dr. Dietz's last opinion is “drawn nearly verbatim” from an academic article that lists eleven “pathways to false sexual assault allegations,” which are: lying, implied consent, false memories, intoxication, antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, delirium, psychotic disorders, dissociation, and intellectual disability. Notice at 7–10; Gov't Br., Ex. C (“Pathways Article”). The Government argues that this testimony should be excluded because it is not based on reliable methods, it involves lay topics within the ken of the jury, and it does not fit the facts of the case. Gov't Br. at 18–21. Based on the facts currently before it, the Court will not admit this opinion. First, Dr. Dietz's opinion relies on a single article that presents these explanations for false accusations but provides no empirical basis for how frequent any of them are. E.g., Pathways Article at 97 11 DOJ-OGR-00008183",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 11 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "testimony for a permissible purpose, the Court finds a substantial risk that jurors will instead use Dr. Dietz's testimony to evaluate the credibility of witnesses before them. This risk of confusing or misleading the jury substantially outweighs the little permissible relevance that the opinion has.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defense in its response does not mention the third piece of Dr. Dietz's opinion on witness credibility, which is that victims of sexual abuse have higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse that “can affect memory and recall.” Notice at 11. It is unclear to the Court why this opinion is helpful to the jury or relevant to the Defense's case. Indeed, it seems directly contrary to the Defense's position at the Daubert hearing that it intends to impeach the credibility of some alleged victims because of their substance abuse. Nov. 10 Tr. at 156–57.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Without more, the Court excludes this opinion under Rules 401 and 403 as irrelevant, as needlessly cumulative with Dr. Rocchio's opinion about substance abuse, and because it is likely to confuse the jury or needlessly inflame biases about individuals with mental illness.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dr. Dietz's last opinion is “drawn nearly verbatim” from an academic article that lists eleven “pathways to false sexual assault allegations,” which are: lying, implied consent, false memories, intoxication, antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, delirium, psychotic disorders, dissociation, and intellectual disability. Notice at 7–10; Gov't Br., Ex. C (“Pathways Article”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government argues that this testimony should be excluded because it is not based on reliable methods, it involves lay topics within the ken of the jury, and it does not fit the facts of the case. Gov't Br. at 18–21.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Based on the facts currently before it, the Court will not admit this opinion. First, Dr. Dietz's opinion relies on a single article that presents these explanations for false accusations but provides no empirical basis for how frequent any of them are. E.g., Pathways Article at 97",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008183",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz",
      "Dr. Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/21/21",
      "Nov. 10"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 516",
      "Notice at 11",
      "Nov. 10 Tr. at 156–57",
      "Notice at 7–10",
      "Gov't Br., Ex. C",
      "Gov't Br. at 18–21",
      "Pathways Article at 97",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008183"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 11 of 17."
}