{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "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 3 of 17\n\nThe Government instead objects to the reliability of his methods, the fit of his opinions to this case, and the risk of Rule 403 prejudice. The Court will deny in part and grant in part the Government's motion as to Dr. Dietz.\n\nTo start, several of Dr. Dietz's opinions criticize the basis of Dr. Rocchio's grooming opinion. First, he states that \"grooming has no consistent definition\" and that \"there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred.\" Notice at 4. The Government agrees that this opinion is relevant to respond to Dr. Rocchio's testimony and is otherwise admissible. Gov't Br. at 9. The Court agrees.\n\nSecond, Dr. Dietz states that studies of grooming have \"no known error rate\" and \"cannot be tested\" because they rely on the reports of alleged victims. Notice at 4. The Government does not expressly respond to this opinion except to say that Dr. Dietz's and Dr. Loftus's opinions similarly lack error rates. Gov't Br. at 36. The Court concludes that this criticism of Dr. Rocchio's grooming opinion is relevant and admissible.\n\nThird, Dr. Dietz would provide several opinions about the relationship between grooming and intent. He states that the term grooming \"imputes motive and intent without adequate evidence of either,\" that it \"imput[es] motive and intent to the Defendant,\" that \"there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder in believing that\" innocent conduct is grooming, and that a determination of grooming is a \"subjective judgment.\" Notice at 3-4. The Government argues that these opinions are inadmissible because it is the jury's role to determine the Defendant's intent. Gov't Br. at 10-11. Rule 704(b) \"expressly forbids opinion testimony by an expert as to the state of mind of a defendant in a criminal case where that mental state is an element of the crime.\" United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1215 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 704(b)).\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00008175",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 3 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government instead objects to the reliability of his methods, the fit of his opinions to this case, and the risk of Rule 403 prejudice. The Court will deny in part and grant in part the Government's motion as to Dr. Dietz.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To start, several of Dr. Dietz's opinions criticize the basis of Dr. Rocchio's grooming opinion. First, he states that \"grooming has no consistent definition\" and that \"there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred.\" Notice at 4. The Government agrees that this opinion is relevant to respond to Dr. Rocchio's testimony and is otherwise admissible. Gov't Br. at 9. The Court agrees.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, Dr. Dietz states that studies of grooming have \"no known error rate\" and \"cannot be tested\" because they rely on the reports of alleged victims. Notice at 4. The Government does not expressly respond to this opinion except to say that Dr. Dietz's and Dr. Loftus's opinions similarly lack error rates. Gov't Br. at 36. The Court concludes that this criticism of Dr. Rocchio's grooming opinion is relevant and admissible.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, Dr. Dietz would provide several opinions about the relationship between grooming and intent. He states that the term grooming \"imputes motive and intent without adequate evidence of either,\" that it \"imput[es] motive and intent to the Defendant,\" that \"there is considerable risk of misleading the fact finder in believing that\" innocent conduct is grooming, and that a determination of grooming is a \"subjective judgment.\" Notice at 3-4. The Government argues that these opinions are inadmissible because it is the jury's role to determine the Defendant's intent. Gov't Br. at 10-11. Rule 704(b) \"expressly forbids opinion testimony by an expert as to the state of mind of a defendant in a criminal case where that mental state is an element of the crime.\" United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1215 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 704(b)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008175",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz",
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Dr. Loftus"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/21/21",
      "1992"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 516",
      "958 F.2d 1206"
    ]
  },
  "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 3 of 17."
}