{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "69",
    "document_number": "747",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 69 of 228 745 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct\nhappens for the gratification of a third person.\nAnd I said, Is there anything like that in the child sexual abuse context beyond the, sort of, institutional authority positions that you've discussed?\nAnd she said no, which was the basis for my exclusion of that small window of her testimony.\nSo I still think that even if there are slightly distinct points to be made as to whether grooming always happens for the sexual gratification of the person who's doing the grooming, and whether grooming by a third person facilitates child sexual abuse for another person, for me, the context in the Daubert overlapped and related to the same issue, which is the narrow issue that I excluded on.\nSo I take your point that there's a slight analytical distinction and, therefore, I don't believe you intentionally violated my ruling. I do think sustaining the objection is consistent with that ruling. I don't understand how it could be that in conferring, both counsel completely misunderstood each other. Mr. Pagliuca says he asked specifically about the question that you asked, and understood you to say that you wouldn't ask it. And you said you asked specifically about this question and you understood him to say he didn't have an objection. Wow. I can't explain that. It seems to me that you had this discussion on this issue precisely because it comes up to the question of the boundaries of the opinion and\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00012354",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 69 of 228 745 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "happens for the gratification of a third person.\nAnd I said, Is there anything like that in the child sexual abuse context beyond the, sort of, institutional authority positions that you've discussed?\nAnd she said no, which was the basis for my exclusion of that small window of her testimony.\nSo I still think that even if there are slightly distinct points to be made as to whether grooming always happens for the sexual gratification of the person who's doing the grooming, and whether grooming by a third person facilitates child sexual abuse for another person, for me, the context in the Daubert overlapped and related to the same issue, which is the narrow issue that I excluded on.\nSo I take your point that there's a slight analytical distinction and, therefore, I don't believe you intentionally violated my ruling. I do think sustaining the objection is consistent with that ruling. I don't understand how it could be that in conferring, both counsel completely misunderstood each other. Mr. Pagliuca says he asked specifically about the question that you asked, and understood you to say that you wouldn't ask it. And you said you asked specifically about this question and you understood him to say he didn't have an objection. Wow. I can't explain that. It seems to me that you had this discussion on this issue precisely because it comes up to the question of the boundaries of the opinion and",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012354",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Pagliuca"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "747",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012354"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}