mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006250.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39 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 39 of 41\nadopting outright a legal conclusion proffered by an expert witness, the testimony would remain objectionable by communicating a legal standard—explicit or implicit—to the jury.\n4. Factual Narratives About the Case\nThe following opinions are objectionable vehicles for factual narrative about the case:\n- Identification of “some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case,” as described in Paragraph 6 above.\n- How, “in a case like this one, suggestion can lead individuals to the construction of distorted memories,” as described in Paragraph 7 above.\nDr. Loftus should be precluded from embedding a factual narrative about the case in her opinions. Dr. Loftus has not evaluated any of the victims in this case. Unlike Dr. Dietz, Dr. Loftus does not even describe what case-specific materials she has reviewed. (Cf. Ex. A at 3 (“Attached as Exhibit C [and Exhibit B to this motion] is a list of material reviewed by Dr. Dietz.”)). Dr. Loftus thus has no basis to comment on whether or not certain “suggestive activities” may have influenced any of the victims before the jury, much less a basis to show that she has “reliably applied [her] principles and methods of the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Any such opinions from Dr. Loftus regarding the facts of this particular case would thus lack any scientific basis, would be extremely prejudicial, and would mislead the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, 403; see also, e.g., Island Intell. Prop., 2012 WL 526722, at *2 (“It is also inappropriate for experts to act as . . . vehicles for factual narrative . . .”).\nIII. IF DEFENSE CHALLENGES TO DR. ROCCHIO ARE ACCEPTED, THE DEFENSE EXPERTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED\nIt bears noting that neither Dr. Dietz nor Dr. Loftus’s proposed testimony can survive the defense’s own understanding of the reliability requirements of Daubert. While the Government\n35\nDOJ-OGR-00006250",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 39 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "adopting outright a legal conclusion proffered by an expert witness, the testimony would remain objectionable by communicating a legal standard—explicit or implicit—to the jury.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Factual Narratives About the Case\nThe following opinions are objectionable vehicles for factual narrative about the case:\n- Identification of “some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case,” as described in Paragraph 6 above.\n- How, “in a case like this one, suggestion can lead individuals to the construction of distorted memories,” as described in Paragraph 7 above.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dr. Loftus should be precluded from embedding a factual narrative about the case in her opinions. Dr. Loftus has not evaluated any of the victims in this case. Unlike Dr. Dietz, Dr. Loftus does not even describe what case-specific materials she has reviewed. (Cf. Ex. A at 3 (“Attached as Exhibit C [and Exhibit B to this motion] is a list of material reviewed by Dr. Dietz.”)). Dr. Loftus thus has no basis to comment on whether or not certain “suggestive activities” may have influenced any of the victims before the jury, much less a basis to show that she has “reliably applied [her] principles and methods of the facts of the case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Any such opinions from Dr. Loftus regarding the facts of this particular case would thus lack any scientific basis, would be extremely prejudicial, and would mislead the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703, 403; see also, e.g., Island Intell. Prop., 2012 WL 526722, at *2 (“It is also inappropriate for experts to act as . . . vehicles for factual narrative . . .”",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. IF DEFENSE CHALLENGES TO DR. ROCCHIO ARE ACCEPTED, THE DEFENSE EXPERTS SHOULD BE EXCLUDED\nIt bears noting that neither Dr. Dietz nor Dr. Loftus’s proposed testimony can survive the defense’s own understanding of the reliability requirements of Daubert. While the Government",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006250",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Loftus",
      "Dr. Dietz",
      "Dr. Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006250"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}