{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "70",
    "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 70 of 228 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct there we are. Anything further? MR. PAGLIUCA: Not from me, your Honor. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, nothing further. I just wanted to note that in the transcript for your Honor. Our understanding is that the question that had been posed to Dr. Rocchio was about the presence of third parties, and just wanted to make that clear for your Honor when she had said no, that was our understanding as to what she was saying no about, in terms of the support in the literature, your Honor. But I take your Honor's point. We can move on, your Honor. I just wanted to explain that to the Court, where the question was coming from, your Honor. THE COURT: The question you asked that was objected to here was, Based on your experience, research, and training, is the person doing the grooming always the recipient of the sexual gratification? For the reasons I've indicated, that is precluded by the narrow basis on which I did preclude what they call grooming by proxy. Again, I see there's a slight analytical distinction between the question you asked and that theory, but the question, I think -- and I see that she says no, that wasn't how she understood it. But still for me, that testimony was in aid of the next piece, which I excluded. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012355",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 70 of 228 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "there we are. Anything further? MR. PAGLIUCA: Not from me, your Honor. MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, nothing further. I just wanted to note that in the transcript for your Honor. Our understanding is that the question that had been posed to Dr. Rocchio was about the presence of third parties, and just wanted to make that clear for your Honor when she had said no, that was our understanding as to what she was saying no about, in terms of the support in the literature, your Honor. But I take your Honor's point. We can move on, your Honor. I just wanted to explain that to the Court, where the question was coming from, your Honor. THE COURT: The question you asked that was objected to here was, Based on your experience, research, and training, is the person doing the grooming always the recipient of the sexual gratification? For the reasons I've indicated, that is precluded by the narrow basis on which I did preclude what they call grooming by proxy. Again, I see there's a slight analytical distinction between the question you asked and that theory, but the question, I think -- and I see that she says no, that wasn't how she understood it. But still for me, that testimony was in aid of the next piece, which I excluded.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012355",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MS. POMERANTZ",
      "Dr. Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "747",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012355"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}