mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006247.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "36 of 41",
    "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 36 of 41\n\nSchool of Social Ecology, https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/eloftus/ (\"[Dr. Loftus's] experiments reveal how memories can be changed by things that we are told.\"). Such research may thus be inapplicable to the facts of this case.\n\nTo the extent that the Court believes that the defense may have carried its burden of establishing the reliability of Dr. Loftus's opinions on false memory formation, the Government respectfully requests a Daubert hearing to test the reliability of these opinions.12\n\nEven if any such opinions are reliable, however, they should not be admitted absent an affirmative showing of \"fit\" for this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee n. (stating that \"generalized\" expert testimony must \"'fit' the facts of the case\"). For example, testimony about the ways in which \"false and/or distorted memories can be created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence, or the like\" is irrelevant to this case. At that level of generality, it has no obvious \"fit\" to the facts of this case. There is no evidence that whatever \"occurrences, suggestion, influence, or the like\" about which Dr. Loftus intends to testify happened to any witness in this case, much less in a manner that reliably affects memory or would be probative to the jury. Thus, as with Dr. Dietz, any reliable opinions Dr. Loftus seeks to offer on false memory formation should be limited to those as to which there is a clear evidentiary predicate establishing their \"fit\" to the case.\n\n12 As with Dr. Dietz, see footnote 9, supra, if a hearing is necessary, the Government similarly requests that it be conducted after receiving the defense response and after all necessary Rule 26.2 disclosures have been made.\n\n32\nDOJ-OGR-00006247",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 36 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "School of Social Ecology, https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/eloftus/ (\"[Dr. Loftus's] experiments reveal how memories can be changed by things that we are told.\"). Such research may thus be inapplicable to the facts of this case.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To the extent that the Court believes that the defense may have carried its burden of establishing the reliability of Dr. Loftus's opinions on false memory formation, the Government respectfully requests a Daubert hearing to test the reliability of these opinions.12",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if any such opinions are reliable, however, they should not be admitted absent an affirmative showing of \"fit\" for this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee n. (stating that \"generalized\" expert testimony must \"'fit' the facts of the case\"). For example, testimony about the ways in which \"false and/or distorted memories can be created as a result of post-event information and occurrences, suggestion, influence, or the like\" is irrelevant to this case. At that level of generality, it has no obvious \"fit\" to the facts of this case. There is no evidence that whatever \"occurrences, suggestion, influence, or the like\" about which Dr. Loftus intends to testify happened to any witness in this case, much less in a manner that reliably affects memory or would be probative to the jury. Thus, as with Dr. Dietz, any reliable opinions Dr. Loftus seeks to offer on false memory formation should be limited to those as to which there is a clear evidentiary predicate establishing their \"fit\" to the case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12 As with Dr. Dietz, see footnote 9, supra, if a hearing is necessary, the Government similarly requests that it be conducted after receiving the defense response and after all necessary Rule 26.2 disclosures have been made.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006247",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Loftus",
      "Dr. Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "School of Social Ecology",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "UCI"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006247"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony regarding false memory formation."
}