{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "397-1",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 43\n974\nN. Bennett and W. O'Donohue\ngrooming and the prevention of future abuse (by perhaps a comparison with a no treatment control). Another important issue is to investigate what sort of training programs or materials need to be developed so that a wide variety of professionals can faithfully implement the definition and proposed assessment methods.\nCONCLUSIONS\nCurrently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about key issues such as the interrater reliability of these judgments or the error rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard indicates that in court an expert witness may only testify if (a) \"the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case\" (Rule 702: Testimony by expert witness). Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are \"reliable principles and methods\" to define and detect grooming.\nWe propose a definition of grooming that involves two parts: (a) inappropriate behavior on the part of the adult and (b) sound arguments that this inappropriate behavior functions to increase the probability of future sexual abuse. We then provide exemplars of this kind of inappropriate behavior. Future research on grooming would be much useful to the field if data were collected using a single, clear definition such as the one we have proposed. This would provide a basis for data to be easily aggregated and better understood, which could lead to the admissibility of grooming evidence in forensic settings. Furthermore, we are currently working to develop valid psychometric instruments with known reliability and validity to assess grooming according to this standard.\nREFERENCES\n18 USC § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. (n.d.). In Legal Information Institute online. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A\nDOJ-OGR-00005886",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 43",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "974\nN. Bennett and W. O'Donohue",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "grooming and the prevention of future abuse (by perhaps a comparison with a no treatment control). Another important issue is to investigate what sort of training programs or materials need to be developed so that a wide variety of professionals can faithfully implement the definition and proposed assessment methods.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSIONS",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Currently there is no consensus regarding how to define grooming. In addition, there is no valid method to assess whether grooming has occurred or is occurring. The field possesses an insufficient amount of knowledge about key issues such as the interrater reliability of these judgments or the error rates of these judgments including the frequency of false negatives or false positives. Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. The Daubert standard indicates that in court an expert witness may only testify if (a) \"the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case\" (Rule 702: Testimony by expert witness). Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are \"reliable principles and methods\" to define and detect grooming.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We propose a definition of grooming that involves two parts: (a) inappropriate behavior on the part of the adult and (b) sound arguments that this inappropriate behavior functions to increase the probability of future sexual abuse. We then provide exemplars of this kind of inappropriate behavior. Future research on grooming would be much useful to the field if data were collected using a single, clear definition such as the one we have proposed. This would provide a basis for data to be easily aggregated and better understood, which could lead to the admissibility of grooming evidence in forensic settings. Furthermore, we are currently working to develop valid psychometric instruments with known reliability and validity to assess grooming according to this standard.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "REFERENCES",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 USC § 2252A. Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography. (n.d.). In Legal Information Institute online. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252A",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005886",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "N. Bennett",
      "W. O'Donohue"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Legal Information Institute"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005886"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving child pornography. The text discusses the concept of grooming and its implications in forensic settings. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}