mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006740.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32 of 84",
    "document_number": "452",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 32 of 84\n\n(Def. Mot. 3 at 16). This argument misunderstands the role of the jury. Jurors are not tasked merely with applying Dr. Rocchio's expertise to facts. The jury will hear testimony that some Minor Victims did not immediately disclose their sexual abuse. When evaluating the credibility of those delayed disclosures, they will have the benefit of observing the Minor Victims' testimony, including their cross-examination which is sure to address their delayed disclosure, and the Minor Victims' explanation for those delays. The jury will also hear general testimony from Dr. Rocchio about various circumstances that may lead victims of sexual abuse to delay disclosure. In the totality of the circumstances, the jury can then decide who it finds credible.\n\nThe defendant also argues it is prejudicial to her that Dr. Rocchio suggests \"that delayed reporting is more consistent with truthfulness than fabrication, a determination which the jury must make for itself.\" (Def. Mot. 3 at 17). It is unclear how the defendant can simultaneously argue that (1) Dr. Rocchio's testimony improperly assumes the role of the jury by suggesting that delayed reporting is \"more consistent\" with child sexual abuse (id.); and (2) Dr. Rocchio's testimony would only help the jury if she resolved any ambiguity by saying that delayed reporting is a necessary consequence of child sexual abuse (id. at 15-16).\n\nFinally, according to the defendant, Dr. Rocchio's arguments will only prejudice the defendant, because it will serve to bolster the witnesses' credibility. As the defense acknowledges, however, Dr. Rocchio will not offer an opinion regarding any specific victim, and she has not evaluated any victims in this case. (Cf. Def. Mot. 3 at 16 (citing United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 1999), in which the expert opined that the victims were in fact abused based \"largely on crediting the girls' account,\" thereby \"vouching for their truthfulness\").\n\n31\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006740",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 32 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Def. Mot. 3 at 16). This argument misunderstands the role of the jury. Jurors are not tasked merely with applying Dr. Rocchio's expertise to facts. The jury will hear testimony that some Minor Victims did not immediately disclose their sexual abuse. When evaluating the credibility of those delayed disclosures, they will have the benefit of observing the Minor Victims' testimony, including their cross-examination which is sure to address their delayed disclosure, and the Minor Victims' explanation for those delays. The jury will also hear general testimony from Dr. Rocchio about various circumstances that may lead victims of sexual abuse to delay disclosure. In the totality of the circumstances, the jury can then decide who it finds credible.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant also argues it is prejudicial to her that Dr. Rocchio suggests \"that delayed reporting is more consistent with truthfulness than fabrication, a determination which the jury must make for itself.\" (Def. Mot. 3 at 17). It is unclear how the defendant can simultaneously argue that (1) Dr. Rocchio's testimony improperly assumes the role of the jury by suggesting that delayed reporting is \"more consistent\" with child sexual abuse (id.); and (2) Dr. Rocchio's testimony would only help the jury if she resolved any ambiguity by saying that delayed reporting is a necessary consequence of child sexual abuse (id. at 15-16).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, according to the defendant, Dr. Rocchio's arguments will only prejudice the defendant, because it will serve to bolster the witnesses' credibility. As the defense acknowledges, however, Dr. Rocchio will not offer an opinion regarding any specific victim, and she has not evaluated any victims in this case. (Cf. Def. Mot. 3 at 16 (citing United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 1999), in which the expert opined that the victims were in fact abused based \"largely on crediting the girls' account,\" thereby \"vouching for their truthfulness\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "31",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006740",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "1999"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 452",
      "Def. Mot. 3",
      "189 F.3d 1251",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006740"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the role of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, and her testimony regarding delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}