{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22 of 84",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 22 of 84\n\nThat is precisely how Rule 702 works in cases where experts testify about general principles, which the Rule contemplates. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note (“[I]t might also be important in some cases for an expert to educate the factfinder about general principles, without ever attempting to apply these principles to the specific facts of the case.”). Dr. Rocchio will provide reliable opinions about principles of coercion and attachment in abusive relationships that will help the jury understand the psychological factors underlying the relationships that the jury will learn about at trial.\n\nFinally, the defendant argues that the Court should preclude Dr. Rocchio’s testimony under Rule 403. In so arguing, she expresses concern that Dr. Rocchio’s testimony will “‘radically simplify’ an otherwise complex case” by “‘foist[ing] a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all.’” (Def. Mot. at 11 (quoting United States v. Burns, No. 07 Cr. 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2009)).5 There is nothing prejudicial or simple about Dr. Rocchio’s testimony. The jury will not conclude that the defendant is guilty because Dr. Rocchio explains that acts which “might have been motivated by a variety of ends” are sometimes part of the process of sexual abuse. Whether\n\nexpert testimony to educate the factfinder on general principles.” Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note). The defendant cites no place containing this limitation in the text of the Rule, its advisory committee notes, Daubert, or the law of this Circuit or District. Nor does it make sense on its own terms: “how financial markets respond to corporate reports” or the “principles of thermodynamics” are sometimes highly predictable, but not always, depending on the context.\n\n5 Burns, a case about a district court’s application at sentencing of a Guidelines enhancement, says nothing about whether the jury would be confused by learning about grooming.\n\n21\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005805",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 22 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "That is precisely how Rule 702 works in cases where experts testify about general principles, which the Rule contemplates. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note (“[I]t might also be important in some cases for an expert to educate the factfinder about general principles, without ever attempting to apply these principles to the specific facts of the case.”). Dr. Rocchio will provide reliable opinions about principles of coercion and attachment in abusive relationships that will help the jury understand the psychological factors underlying the relationships that the jury will learn about at trial.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the defendant argues that the Court should preclude Dr. Rocchio’s testimony under Rule 403. In so arguing, she expresses concern that Dr. Rocchio’s testimony will “‘radically simplify’ an otherwise complex case” by “‘foist[ing] a damning teleology on a series of actions each of which might have been motivated by a variety of ends or no ends at all.’” (Def. Mot. at 11 (quoting United States v. Burns, No. 07 Cr. 556, 2009 WL 3617448, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2009)).5 There is nothing prejudicial or simple about Dr. Rocchio’s testimony. The jury will not conclude that the defendant is guilty because Dr. Rocchio explains that acts which “might have been motivated by a variety of ends” are sometimes part of the process of sexual abuse. Whether",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "expert testimony to educate the factfinder on general principles.” Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d at 150 n.12 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee note). The defendant cites no place containing this limitation in the text of the Rule, its advisory committee notes, Daubert, or the law of this Circuit or District. Nor does it make sense on its own terms: “how financial markets respond to corporate reports” or the “principles of thermodynamics” are sometimes highly predictable, but not always, depending on the context.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 Burns, a case about a district court’s application at sentencing of a Guidelines enhancement, says nothing about whether the jury would be confused by learning about grooming.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005805",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "N.D. Ill."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "Oct. 27, 2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 397",
      "No. 07 Cr. 556",
      "2009 WL 3617448",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005805"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}