mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006234.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "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 23 of 41\ncan be either true or false, and offering an “expert” opinion that allegations can be false is simply prejudicial, not only inviting the jury to speculate about the frequency of false allegations but giving the incorrect impression that they are common. Indeed, if Dr. Dietz seeks to offer such testimony that false accusations “do occur,” it will open the door for the Government to elicit on cross-examination that Dr. Dietz’s principal source, which he relies on “nearly verbatim” (Ex. A at 7), concludes that “the most recent more methodologically adequate studies have indicated that false allegations are somewhat rare” (Ex. C at 101 (citing study estimating the frequency of false rape allegations between 2% and 10%)).6 Of course, the Government’s view is that this entire topic can serve only to distract the jury from its task of determining whether these specific allegations are in fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus Dr. Dietz should be precluded from offering this opinion.\nMany of the “pathways” Dr. Dietz describes are not just within the ken of the jury, they are at the core of the jury’s role. It is not helpful to the jury or permissible under Rule 702 for an expert to testify that “lying,” a mistake of “implied consent,” or “intoxication” could lead to a false accusation of a crime. Sorting out witness credibility, mistake, or other such circumstances is squarely the function of the jury, which will be instructed by the Court and which does not need the help of a psychiatrist to assess such possibilities. See, e.g., United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d\n6 The Government typically cannot introduce evidence of the statistical infrequency of false accusations, but if Dr. Dietz is allowed to create a false impression of their frequency, it is only fair to allow the Government to correct the record. United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1296 (2d Cir. 1991) (“The weighing of relevance under Rule 403 may be altered when a false impression is created by earlier testimony. That is, evidence whose probative value might not ordinarily outweigh its prejudicial effect if offered on direct examination is admiss[i]ble to rebut testimony elicited on cross examination that created a false impression.” (citations omitted)).",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 424 Filed 11/08/21 Page 23 of 41",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "can be either true or false, and offering an “expert” opinion that allegations can be false is simply prejudicial, not only inviting the jury to speculate about the frequency of false allegations but giving the incorrect impression that they are common. Indeed, if Dr. Dietz seeks to offer such testimony that false accusations “do occur,” it will open the door for the Government to elicit on cross-examination that Dr. Dietz’s principal source, which he relies on “nearly verbatim” (Ex. A at 7), concludes that “the most recent more methodologically adequate studies have indicated that false allegations are somewhat rare” (Ex. C at 101 (citing study estimating the frequency of false rape allegations between 2% and 10%)).6 Of course, the Government’s view is that this entire topic can serve only to distract the jury from its task of determining whether these specific allegations are in fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus Dr. Dietz should be precluded from offering this opinion.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Many of the “pathways” Dr. Dietz describes are not just within the ken of the jury, they are at the core of the jury’s role. It is not helpful to the jury or permissible under Rule 702 for an expert to testify that “lying,” a mistake of “implied consent,” or “intoxication” could lead to a false accusation of a crime. Sorting out witness credibility, mistake, or other such circumstances is squarely the function of the jury, which will be instructed by the Court and which does not need the help of a psychiatrist to assess such possibilities. See, e.g., United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 The Government typically cannot introduce evidence of the statistical infrequency of false accusations, but if Dr. Dietz is allowed to create a false impression of their frequency, it is only fair to allow the Government to correct the record. United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1296 (2d Cir. 1991) (“The weighing of relevance under Rule 403 may be altered when a false impression is created by earlier testimony. That is, evidence whose probative value might not ordinarily outweigh its prejudicial effect if offered on direct examination is admiss[i]ble to rebut testimony elicited on cross examination that created a false impression.” (citations omitted)).",
      "position": "footnote"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/08/21",
      "1991"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 424",
      "Ex. A",
      "Ex. C",
      "Rule 702",
      "Rule 403",
      "273 F.3d",
      "926 F.2d 1285"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony regarding false allegations. The text is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}