{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "document_number": "424",
    "date": "11/08/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 22 of 41\nProp., 2012 WL 526722, at *2 (\"It is also inappropriate for experts to act as . . . vehicles for factual narrative\"). This \"opinion\" should be precluded.\n4. Opinions as to \"Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault\"\nThe defense's offer of Dr. Dietz's opinions regarding the existence of false allegations of sexual assault and the \"multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault\" (Ex. A at 7) is a remarkable departure from permissible practice in a criminal trial. The very form and nature of all of these opinions is highly prejudicial and seeks to invade the province of the jury and displace the Court; the offer of these opinions, which are largely lifted \"nearly verbatim\" from a single journal article (attached as Exhibit C), is not the product of reliable methods applied to the case; the opinions are well within the ken of the jury; and there is no showing whatsoever of any \"fit\" between these opinions and the evidence to be presented at trial.\nThe form of Dr. Dietz's opinions—listing a number of disparate circumstances and personality traits, with no showing of any connection to the evidence of this case, and conjecturing various ways in which they could lead to false allegations of sexual assault—is a breathtaking inversion of proper expert opinion. To appreciate the audacity of the defense approach, consider if the Government attempted to do something similar. If the defense put on witnesses at trial, and the Government then called in rebuttal an expert psychiatrist to offer opinions on \"Pathways to False Exculpatory Testimony\" who opined that a variety of circumstances or mental conditions could hypothetically lead individuals to testify in ways that falsely exculpated a defendant, it is safe to assume that the defense would object. What the defense offers here is no less inappropriate.\nBeyond the obvious problems with the form of the opinions, the opinions themselves are plainly not admissible under Rule 702. Dr. Dietz's opinion that \"[f]alse allegations of sexual assault do occur\" (Ex. A at 7), is not helpful to the jury. There will be no dispute that allegations 18\nDOJ-OGR-00006233",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 22 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Prop., 2012 WL 526722, at *2 (\"It is also inappropriate for experts to act as . . . vehicles for factual narrative\"). This \"opinion\" should be precluded.\n4. Opinions as to \"Pathways to False Allegations of Sexual Assault\"\nThe defense's offer of Dr. Dietz's opinions regarding the existence of false allegations of sexual assault and the \"multiple pathways to these false allegations of sexual assault\" (Ex. A at 7) is a remarkable departure from permissible practice in a criminal trial. The very form and nature of all of these opinions is highly prejudicial and seeks to invade the province of the jury and displace the Court; the offer of these opinions, which are largely lifted \"nearly verbatim\" from a single journal article (attached as Exhibit C), is not the product of reliable methods applied to the case; the opinions are well within the ken of the jury; and there is no showing whatsoever of any \"fit\" between these opinions and the evidence to be presented at trial.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The form of Dr. Dietz's opinions—listing a number of disparate circumstances and personality traits, with no showing of any connection to the evidence of this case, and conjecturing various ways in which they could lead to false allegations of sexual assault—is a breathtaking inversion of proper expert opinion. To appreciate the audacity of the defense approach, consider if the Government attempted to do something similar. If the defense put on witnesses at trial, and the Government then called in rebuttal an expert psychiatrist to offer opinions on \"Pathways to False Exculpatory Testimony\" who opined that a variety of circumstances or mental conditions could hypothetically lead individuals to testify in ways that falsely exculpated a defendant, it is safe to assume that the defense would object. What the defense offers here is no less inappropriate.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Beyond the obvious problems with the form of the opinions, the opinions themselves are plainly not admissible under Rule 702. Dr. Dietz's opinion that \"[f]alse allegations of sexual assault do occur\" (Ex. A at 7), is not helpful to the jury. There will be no dispute that allegations 18",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006233",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "2012 WL 526722",
      "Exhibit C",
      "Ex. A",
      "Rule 702",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006233"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}