{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12 of 24",
    "document_number": "386",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 386 Filed 10/29/21 Page 12 of 24\n\nSept. 22, 2010) (finding expert's opinion unreliable because the expert testified \"that when her clinical patients tell her they have been subjected to sexual abuse, she unequivocally believes them\"). Rocchio's testimony thus runs the significant \"risk of being the ipse dixit of the expert against which the Supreme Court has warned.\" Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3 (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1999)). And because of her \"inability to cite an error rate for false positives,\" her \"testimony [is] virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination.\" Id. at *2 (citing United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146-47 (D. Me. 2010) (excluding testimony about grooming in prosecution for transporting a minor across state lines with the intent of engaging in illegal sexual activity)).\n\nBut even if Rocchio's personal opinion about the veracity of her patients were sufficient to render her testimony reliable, her patients are a self-selected group of individuals. Rocchio has not and cannot point to a single study, controlled or otherwise, establishing the representativeness of her patients as typical victims of so-called grooming behavior. Ex. 1; E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., Civ. No. 07-8383(LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (exclusion of an expert is required where the expert makes \"no effort to ensure that the materials he reviewed were representative\"). Again, Rocchio's opinions \"cannot be challenged or tested in any meaningful way.\" See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at *4.\n\nThere are other problems with Rocchio's proposed testimony. She opines, for example, that \"[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted [through grooming] by perpetrators of sexual abuse,\" Ex. 1, p.2, but she doesn't explain how often. Half the time? Two-thirds of the time? Nor does she explain how \"frequently\" the \"sexual abuse of minors . . . occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time.\" Id. Rocchio's generic conclusions that grooming \"often\" happens or developed over time.\"",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 386 Filed 10/29/21 Page 12 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Sept. 22, 2010) (finding expert's opinion unreliable because the expert testified \"that when her clinical patients tell her they have been subjected to sexual abuse, she unequivocally believes them\"). Rocchio's testimony thus runs the significant \"risk of being the ipse dixit of the expert against which the Supreme Court has warned.\" Gonyer, 2012 WL 3043020, at *3 (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1999)). And because of her \"inability to cite an error rate for false positives,\" her \"testimony [is] virtually impregnable for purposes of cross-examination.\" Id. at *2 (citing United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142, 146-47 (D. Me. 2010) (excluding testimony about grooming in prosecution for transporting a minor across state lines with the intent of engaging in illegal sexual activity)).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But even if Rocchio's personal opinion about the veracity of her patients were sufficient to render her testimony reliable, her patients are a self-selected group of individuals. Rocchio has not and cannot point to a single study, controlled or otherwise, establishing the representativeness of her patients as typical victims of so-called grooming behavior. Ex. 1; E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., Civ. No. 07-8383(LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (exclusion of an expert is required where the expert makes \"no effort to ensure that the materials he reviewed were representative\"). Again, Rocchio's opinions \"cannot be challenged or tested in any meaningful way.\" See Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055, at *4.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There are other problems with Rocchio's proposed testimony. She opines, for example, that \"[i]ndividuals with particular vulnerabilities are often targeted [through grooming] by perpetrators of sexual abuse,\" Ex. 1, p.2, but she doesn't explain how often. Half the time? Two-thirds of the time? Nor does she explain how \"frequently\" the \"sexual abuse of minors . . . occurs through the use of manipulation or coercion in the context of an established relationship that is developed over time.\" Id. Rocchio's generic conclusions that grooming \"often\" happens or developed over time.\"",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005636",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "E.E.O.C.",
      "Bloomberg L.P."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "D. Me."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Sept. 22, 2010",
      "Aug. 31, 2010",
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 386",
      "Civ. No. 07-8383(LAP)",
      "2012 WL 3043020",
      "522 U.S. 136",
      "700 F. Supp. 2d 142",
      "2010 WL 3466370",
      "2010 WL 3734055",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005636"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the reliability of an expert witness's testimony. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}