mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007485.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "499",
    "date": "11/23/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 20 of 28\n\nquestion—are the accusers in this case telling the truth? The government obviously thinks they are. And that's fine. But it will be up to the jury to decide.\n\nOn the other hand, if the alleged “victims of sexual assaults . . . [were not] involved an ongoing relationship of attachment and coercion with their abusers”—that is, if the victims are not telling the truth—then according to the government Dr. Dietz's opinions are unreliable. In either scenario, says the government, Dr. Dietz can't testify. As explained above, and as the government concedes when it admits that Dr. Dietz can testify about his disagreement with Dr. Rocchio's definition of “grooming,” there is ample room for debate about what constitutes grooming behavior and how it manifests.\n\nAccordingly, this Court should reject this “heads the government wins, tails Ms. Maxwell loses” argument.\n\nII. Dr. Loftus's Testimony is Admissible.\n\nThe government goes to great lengths to present cases where memory testimony was precluded. Excepting one civil negligence claim based on exposure to sexual abuse, the cases cited by the government almost exclusively focus on reliability of eyewitness testimony or failed memory regarding specific time or documents. The simplicity of the issues in the cited cases were deemed by the court not to require expert testimony. None of these cases involved the government proffering its own expert to testify about why an accuser or witness might not remember things or remember them inconsistently. Moreover, the cases recognize that, in circumstances like those present in this case, even absent a government “trauma/memory” witness, defense expert testimony is appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Heine, No. 3:15-CR-00238-SI-2, 2017 WL 5260784, at *2 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2017) (expert testimony regarding memory would be allowed if the case involved issues of suggestive questioning, drug use, hallucinations, or repressed or recovered memories).\n\n16\n\nDOJ-OGR-00007485",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 499 Filed 11/23/21 Page 20 of 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "question—are the accusers in this case telling the truth? The government obviously thinks they are. And that's fine. But it will be up to the jury to decide.\n\nOn the other hand, if the alleged “victims of sexual assaults . . . [were not] involved an ongoing relationship of attachment and coercion with their abusers”—that is, if the victims are not telling the truth—then according to the government Dr. Dietz's opinions are unreliable. In either scenario, says the government, Dr. Dietz can't testify. As explained above, and as the government concedes when it admits that Dr. Dietz can testify about his disagreement with Dr. Rocchio's definition of “grooming,” there is ample room for debate about what constitutes grooming behavior and how it manifests.\n\nAccordingly, this Court should reject this “heads the government wins, tails Ms. Maxwell loses” argument.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Dr. Loftus's Testimony is Admissible.\n\nThe government goes to great lengths to present cases where memory testimony was precluded. Excepting one civil negligence claim based on exposure to sexual abuse, the cases cited by the government almost exclusively focus on reliability of eyewitness testimony or failed memory regarding specific time or documents. The simplicity of the issues in the cited cases were deemed by the court not to require expert testimony. None of these cases involved the government proffering its own expert to testify about why an accuser or witness might not remember things or remember them inconsistently. Moreover, the cases recognize that, in circumstances like those present in this case, even absent a government “trauma/memory” witness, defense expert testimony is appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Heine, No. 3:15-CR-00238-SI-2, 2017 WL 5260784, at *2 (D. Or. Nov. 13, 2017) (expert testimony regarding memory would be allowed if the case involved issues of suggestive questioning, drug use, hallucinations, or repressed or recovered memories).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007485",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz",
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Dr. Loftus"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "government",
      "court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "D. Or."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/23/21",
      "Nov. 13, 2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "499",
      "3:15-CR-00238-SI-2",
      "2017 WL 5260784",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007485"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}