mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008182.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "516",
    "date": "11/21/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 10 of 17\nhow to verify victims' claims is not responsive to Dr. Rocchio's testimony from her clinical experience. And contrary to the Defense's briefing, nothing in Dr. Dietz's expert notice contradicts this description of Dr. Rocchio's role in a clinical setting. He lists \"indices\" that \"professionals often use.\" Notice at 10. But Dr. Dietz does not say that psychologists in a clinical setting must use these indices to verify their patients' claims. On the forensic side, Dr. Rocchio takes on \"an investigative role\" and does not accept claims \"at face value.\" Nov. 10 Tr. at 15. But Dr. Dietz's opinion about evaluating victims' credibility still has little relevance to Dr. Rocchio's forensic evaluations. In explaining her method, Dr. Rocchio did not say that she \"base[s] her opinions\" on victims' emotional distress. Def. Br. at 14. Rather, she testified that she looks at a significant volume of documentation, conducts an 8 to 10-hour in-person evaluation, and \"conduct[s] collateral interviews with others.\" Nov. 10 Tr. at 37-38. And consistent with Dr. Dietz's opinion, Dr. Rocchio said that she looks \"for consistencies and inconsistencies in what the individual is telling [her] in order to form an opinion.\" Id. at 39. In sum, Dr. Dietz's opinion of determining witnesses' credibility has little relevance to rebut or \"critique\" Dr. Rocchio's methods. Def. Br. at 13.\nSecond, there is a significant risk of prejudice. As explained, expert testimony that evaluates witnesses' credibility is inadmissible. For example, the Second Circuit in Lumpkin affirmed the exclusion of an expert opinion that a witness's \"confidence in identification is not a good predictor of accuracy\" because it \"would effectively have inserted [the expert's] own view of the [testifying witness's] credibility for that of the jurors, thereby usurping their role.\" 192 F.3d at 288–89. Dr. Dietz's opinions that the consistency of core details is predictive of accurate claims and that emotional distress is not predictive of accuracy are very similar to the \"demeanor\" opinion excluded in Lumpkin. Id. Even if the Defense intends Dr. Dietz's\n10\nDOJ-OGR-00008182",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 10 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "how to verify victims' claims is not responsive to Dr. Rocchio's testimony from her clinical experience. And contrary to the Defense's briefing, nothing in Dr. Dietz's expert notice contradicts this description of Dr. Rocchio's role in a clinical setting. He lists \"indices\" that \"professionals often use.\" Notice at 10. But Dr. Dietz does not say that psychologists in a clinical setting must use these indices to verify their patients' claims. On the forensic side, Dr. Rocchio takes on \"an investigative role\" and does not accept claims \"at face value.\" Nov. 10 Tr. at 15. But Dr. Dietz's opinion about evaluating victims' credibility still has little relevance to Dr. Rocchio's forensic evaluations. In explaining her method, Dr. Rocchio did not say that she \"base[s] her opinions\" on victims' emotional distress. Def. Br. at 14. Rather, she testified that she looks at a significant volume of documentation, conducts an 8 to 10-hour in-person evaluation, and \"conduct[s] collateral interviews with others.\" Nov. 10 Tr. at 37-38. And consistent with Dr. Dietz's opinion, Dr. Rocchio said that she looks \"for consistencies and inconsistencies in what the individual is telling [her] in order to form an opinion.\" Id. at 39. In sum, Dr. Dietz's opinion of determining witnesses' credibility has little relevance to rebut or \"critique\" Dr. Rocchio's methods. Def. Br. at 13.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, there is a significant risk of prejudice. As explained, expert testimony that evaluates witnesses' credibility is inadmissible. For example, the Second Circuit in Lumpkin affirmed the exclusion of an expert opinion that a witness's \"confidence in identification is not a good predictor of accuracy\" because it \"would effectively have inserted [the expert's] own view of the [testifying witness's] credibility for that of the jurors, thereby usurping their role.\" 192 F.3d at 288–89. Dr. Dietz's opinions that the consistency of core details is predictive of accurate claims and that emotional distress is not predictive of accuracy are very similar to the \"demeanor\" opinion excluded in Lumpkin. Id. Even if the Defense intends Dr. Dietz's",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008182",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Dr. Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/21/21",
      "Nov. 10"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 516",
      "192 F.3d at 288–89",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008182"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the testimony of Dr. Rocchio and Dr. Dietz in a legal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 10 of a 17-page document."
}