mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006345.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "435",
    "date": "11/11/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 11\nThe Defense instead argues that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable, that it is not relevant to the jury's determination, and that its prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh its probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's anticipated testimony is admissible with one exception. The Court will address first why Dr. Rocchio's testimony is admissible and then address the one opinion that it will exclude.\nFirst, Dr. Rocchio's method is reliable and well-accepted in her profession. It is for this reason that several courts in this circuit have admitted the testimony of similar experts, such as testimony on so-called trauma bonding to explain why prostitutes may not flee from their pimps even when not physically restrained. In United States v. Kidd, the court admitted the testimony, finding it to be \"quite common[ ]\" and accepted in the academic literature. 385 F. Supp. 3d at 263. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18-Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. Torres, No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021).\nTheir decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to consider the admission of such experts. A number of courts have admitted experts on the particular topic of grooming at issue here, a sample of which include the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d 576, 585 (7th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021), the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2010), the Eighth\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00006345",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 435 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defense instead argues that Dr. Rocchio's method is unreliable, that it is not relevant to the jury's determination, and that its prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh its probative value. These arguments rely heavily on a district court opinion from outside this circuit, United States v. Raymond, 700 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Me. 2010). After careful consideration of the Defense's arguments and the thorough reasoning in Raymond, the Court concludes that Dr. Rocchio's anticipated testimony is admissible with one exception. The Court will address first why Dr. Rocchio's testimony is admissible and then address the one opinion that it will exclude.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, Dr. Rocchio's method is reliable and well-accepted in her profession. It is for this reason that several courts in this circuit have admitted the testimony of similar experts, such as testimony on so-called trauma bonding to explain why prostitutes may not flee from their pimps even when not physically restrained. In United States v. Kidd, the court admitted the testimony, finding it to be \"quite common[ ]\" and accepted in the academic literature. 385 F. Supp. 3d at 263. Identical testimony was admitted by Judge Furman in United States v. Dupigny, No. 18-Cr.-528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), Dkt. No. 198 at 27, by Judge Engelmayer in United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. 2020), Dkt. No. 335 at 24-30, and by Judge Cote in United States v. Torres, No. 20-CR-608 (DLC), 2021 WL 1947503, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2021).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Their decisions are consistent with the vast majority of courts to consider the admission of such experts. A number of courts have admitted experts on the particular topic of grooming at issue here, a sample of which include the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Romero, 189 F.3d 576, 585 (7th Cir. 1999), the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 158 (5th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Halamek, 5 F.4th 1081, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2021), the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Batton, 602 F.3d 1191, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2010), the Eighth",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006345",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Judge Furman",
      "Judge Engelmayer",
      "Judge Cote"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Defense"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Me.",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "Seventh Circuit",
      "Fifth Circuit",
      "Ninth Circuit",
      "Tenth Circuit",
      "Eighth Circuit"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/11/21",
      "2010",
      "2019",
      "2020",
      "2021",
      "May 13, 2021",
      "1999",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 435",
      "700 F. Supp. 2d 142",
      "385 F. Supp. 3d 263",
      "No. 18-Cr.-528 (JMF)",
      "Dkt. No. 198",
      "19 Cr. 131 (PAE)",
      "Dkt. No. 335",
      "No. 20-CR-608 (DLC)",
      "2021 WL 1947503",
      "189 F.3d 576",
      "473 F.3d 146",
      "5 F.4th 1081",
      "602 F.3d 1191",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006345"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. [Defendant]. The text discusses the admissibility of expert testimony by Dr. Rocchio. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}