mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008181.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "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 9 of 17\ndoes not match the particular facts of this case—are similarly appropriate grounds for cross-examination but not for outright exclusion. See In re Mirena IUD Prod. Liab. Litig., 169 F. Supp. 3d 396, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).\n\nNext, Dr. Dietz provides several opinions on “indices in determining the credibility of a victim’s claims.” Notice at 10. The first of these indices is whether “the core details” of an accusation remain constant over time. Id. The second is that an alleged victim’s “emotional distress [is not] predictive of the truthfulness of the allegation.” Id. at 11. And third, that victims of sexual assault “have higher rates of mental disorders,” which “can affect memory and recall.” Id. As the Court explained in its opinion admitting Dr. Rocchio, “expert opinions that constitute evaluations of witness credibility, even when such evaluations are rooted in scientific or technical expertise, are inadmissible under Rule 702.” Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398. “And, a witness’s demeanor on the stand . . . impacts the assessment of credibility” by the jury. United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 289 (2d Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).\n\nWith this law in mind, the Defense explains that Dr. Dietz’s credibility testimony is relevant primarily to argue that Dr. Rocchio improperly believed her clients’ claims of sexual abuse. Def. Br. at 13–14. The Defense says that professionals in Dr. Rocchio’s field would evaluate their client’s claims in a clinical setting and that in a forensic setting Dr. Rocchio erred in believing alleged victim’s claims based on their outward emotions. Id.\n\nThe Court will exclude Dr. Dietz’s opinions on witness credibility. First, they have only marginal relevance. At the Daubert hearing, Dr. Rocchio made clear that when serving clients in her clinical capacity, she does not “go out and verify any part of what’s being told in the clinical room.” Nov. 10 Tr. at 16. As she explained, “in a clinical setting, it is not [her] role to determine whether something is or is not true.” Id. at 40. Therefore, Dr. Dietz’s opinion about\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00008181",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 9 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "does not match the particular facts of this case—are similarly appropriate grounds for cross-examination but not for outright exclusion. See In re Mirena IUD Prod. Liab. Litig., 169 F. Supp. 3d 396, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).\n\nNext, Dr. Dietz provides several opinions on “indices in determining the credibility of a victim’s claims.” Notice at 10. The first of these indices is whether “the core details” of an accusation remain constant over time. Id. The second is that an alleged victim’s “emotional distress [is not] predictive of the truthfulness of the allegation.” Id. at 11. And third, that victims of sexual assault “have higher rates of mental disorders,” which “can affect memory and recall.” Id. As the Court explained in its opinion admitting Dr. Rocchio, “expert opinions that constitute evaluations of witness credibility, even when such evaluations are rooted in scientific or technical expertise, are inadmissible under Rule 702.” Nimely, 414 F.3d at 398. “And, a witness’s demeanor on the stand . . . impacts the assessment of credibility” by the jury. United States v. Lumpkin, 192 F.3d 280, 289 (2d Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).\n\nWith this law in mind, the Defense explains that Dr. Dietz’s credibility testimony is relevant primarily to argue that Dr. Rocchio improperly believed her clients’ claims of sexual abuse. Def. Br. at 13–14. The Defense says that professionals in Dr. Rocchio’s field would evaluate their client’s claims in a clinical setting and that in a forensic setting Dr. Rocchio erred in believing alleged victim’s claims based on their outward emotions. Id.\n\nThe Court will exclude Dr. Dietz’s opinions on witness credibility. First, they have only marginal relevance. At the Daubert hearing, Dr. Rocchio made clear that when serving clients in her clinical capacity, she does not “go out and verify any part of what’s being told in the clinical room.” Nov. 10 Tr. at 16. As she explained, “in a clinical setting, it is not [her] role to determine whether something is or is not true.” Id. at 40. Therefore, Dr. Dietz’s opinion about",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008181",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Dietz",
      "Dr. Rocchio"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/21/21",
      "2016",
      "Nov. 10"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 516",
      "169 F. Supp. 3d 396",
      "414 F.3d 398",
      "192 F.3d 280",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008181"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the admissibility of expert testimony regarding witness credibility. The text is printed and legible, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}