mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005796.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 13 of 84\n\n(\"Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984, the term 'grooming' has become so widely adopted that it will remain in widespread use for decades to come.\"); Bennett & O'Donohue, \"The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues,\" 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 964-68 (2014) (reviewing the literature on the prevalence of various grooming techniques); Craven et al., \"Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations,\" 3 J. of Sexual Aggression 287, 292-93 (2006) (\"[R]etrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence\"). To be clear, however, her review of the literature—and therefore the basis of her testimony—extends beyond these articles.\n\nAccordingly, Dr. Rocchio came to her opinions through her clinical experience on this specific issue, as informed by her education and study of the relevant literature. That is a sufficient demonstration of \"how the expert came to [her] conclusion and what methodologies or evidence substantiate that conclusion.\" Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., 451 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2006); see Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 24:1-40:15, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (rejecting the notion that \"the many studies that have validated trauma bonding and coercive controls as established phenomena are unreliable for want of laboratory-like statistical vetting\"); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. Nos. 180-1, 198 (explaining that \"the basis for the testimony—namely, the witness's training and experience—is not such that it would be subject to exclusion on the grounds that it's not based on\n\n12\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005796",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 13 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(\"Since its introduction to the peer-reviewed professional literature in 1984, the term 'grooming' has become so widely adopted that it will remain in widespread use for decades to come.\"); Bennett & O'Donohue, \"The Construct of Grooming in Child Sexual Abuse: Conceptual and Measurement Issues,\" 23 J. Child Sexual Abuse 957, 964-68 (2014) (reviewing the literature on the prevalence of various grooming techniques); Craven et al., \"Sexual grooming of children: Review of literature and theoretical considerations,\" 3 J. of Sexual Aggression 287, 292-93 (2006) (\"[R]etrospective identification of sexual grooming, i.e. after a sexual offence has been committed, is much easier than prospective identification, i.e. before a sexual offence\"). To be clear, however, her review of the literature—and therefore the basis of her testimony—extends beyond these articles.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, Dr. Rocchio came to her opinions through her clinical experience on this specific issue, as informed by her education and study of the relevant literature. That is a sufficient demonstration of \"how the expert came to [her] conclusion and what methodologies or evidence substantiate that conclusion.\" Riegel v. Medtronic Inc., 451 F.3d 104, 127 (2d Cir. 2006); see Feb. 25, 2020 Tr. at 24:1-40:15, United States v. Randall, 19 Cr. 131 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 335 (rejecting the notion that \"the many studies that have validated trauma bonding and coercive controls as established phenomena are unreliable for want of laboratory-like statistical vetting\"); Oct. 17, 2019 Tr. at 27:1-12, United States v. Dupigny, No. 18 Cr. 528 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. Nos. 180-1, 198 (explaining that \"the basis for the testimony—namely, the witness's training and experience—is not such that it would be subject to exclusion on the grounds that it's not based on",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005796",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Bennett",
      "O'Donohue",
      "Craven",
      "Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Medtronic Inc."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1984",
      "2014",
      "2006",
      "Feb. 25, 2020",
      "Oct. 17, 2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "19 Cr. 131",
      "335",
      "18 Cr. 528",
      "180-1",
      "198",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005796"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a header indicating the case number, document number, filing date, and page number. The text discusses the concept of 'grooming' in the context of child sexual abuse and cites various academic sources. The document also references specific court cases and transcripts."
}